Uday Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25256 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2020 Thana- AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAurangabad ====================================================== UDAY KUMAR S/o Yogendra Paswan Residence of Village-Fesara, P.SFesar, District-Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Mukul Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J.K.Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 09-11-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conference. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter shall be removed, and compliance with the conditions of the notices of this Court with regard to acceptance of e-filing shall be made, without delay immediately upon resumption of normal physical functioning of the Court, and in any event within one month thereof.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 290 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic (Amendment) Act, registered in connection with Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. 72 of 2020.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with the offences alleged and the petitioner has no concern with the hotel in question nor any incriminating articles have been recovered from him. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

4. Learned APP on the other hand refers to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25256 of 2020(3) dt.09-11-2020 2/2 agreement entered into between the petitioner and the landlady of the hotel Mrs. Indu Singh (Annexure-2), a copy whereof has been enclosed with the petition itself, according to which the petitioner had taken the hotel on rental of Rs. 31,000/- per month from the date of agreement namely, 01.12.2019 for a period of one year, which covers the date of occurrence.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed.

6. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para 1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- U T