Kush Kumar @ Kush Singh Rajput v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29022 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2016 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Gaya ====================================================== Kush Kumar @ Kush Singh Rajput, son of Surendra Kumar Singh, Resident of Village - Oxbridge Communication Centre, Swarajpuri, P.S.- Civil Line, Distt.- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 01-08-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Gaya Mahila P.S. Case No. 12 of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 376(D), 114, 342, 365, 352, 379, 471, 34 of IPC read with Sections 66A and 66E of Information Technology Act.

Allegation as per F.I.R. is that informant came in contact with one lady Nagma, she called her to Gaya and where she was taken in hotel where the petitioner and other accused persons outrage her modesty and made a video and thereafter, she was constantly blackmail by the accused persons and as such, she was faced the trauma for several days. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the whole allegation is false and concocted, whatever allegation is there that is against Md. Niyaz and his friend and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29022 of 2019(4) dt.01-08-2019 2/2 petitioner has no role. He has never visited the hotel and he is still ready to co-operate in the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention towards Annexure 2&3.

Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also, they have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that there are serious allegation against the petitioner of outraging the modesty and making videographs viral and also of blackmail due to that. Having heard both sides, in view of the allegations, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, he may surrender before the learned court below and make prayer for regular bail. With the aforesaid, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sunil Shukla/- U T