Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54234/2017rejected

Indal Rishideo v. The State Of Bihar

2017-12-15Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54234 of 2017 (2) dt.15-12-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54234 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -561 Year- 2017 Thana -FORBESGANJ District- ARRARIA ======================================================

1. Indal Rishideo son of Sri Lal Rishideo Resident of village - Maheshmudi, Risideo Tola, P.S. - Forbesganj, Dist - Araria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Pushpa Sinha, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Kashyap Kaushal, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 15-12-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Forbesganj Police Station Case No. 561 of 2017, disclosing offences under Sections 354A, 354B, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on account of complaint case bearing No. 1752-C of 2017 lodged by the mother of the petitioner against the prosecution part. Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54234 of 2017 (2) dt.15-12-2017 Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he has dragged the daughter of the informant in the jute field and tried to commit rape with her. Moreover, witnesses have also supported the prosecution version.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Brajesh/- U T