Sameena Talat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36226 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-312 Year-2022 Thana- SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR DistrictSaharsa ====================================================== 1.

SAMEENA TALAT W/O SAQUIB MANZAR R/O Ward No. 2, Village and Post- Paharpur, P.S- Bakhityarpur, Distt.- Saharsa, Bihar- 852127. 2.

Faizur Rahman @ Md. Faizi S/O Late Md. Hifzur Rahman R/O Ward No. 10, Village- Mobarakpur, P.S- Salkhua, Distt.- Saharsa, Bihar- 852127. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 11-09-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Bakhtiyarpur (Saharsa) P.S. Case No.312/2022, registered for the offence punishable u/s 406, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3.

As per the prosecution case, the petitioners are involved in breaking the marriage alliance of the daughter of the informant. It is further alleged by the victim that, she had went to the house of the petitioners, where petitioner no.1 served some food to her, eating which, she became unconscious and petitioner no.2 who was sitting there, made her porn videos.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36226 of 2023(3) dt.11-09-2023 2/2 4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The petitioners have no concern with the informant or his daughter. There is no video clipping as alleged by the prosecution nor there appear any transaction or entrustment to commit any offence. They have no criminal antecedent. 5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and alleged that the petitioners by making her senseless made her obscene video. 6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the statement of the victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C., I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on their behalf is hereby rejected. 7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T