Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39477/2024bail granted

Rajan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-30Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39477 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== Rajan Kumar Son of Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Raut R/O Village Gangti, P.S.- Keoti Barbigha, Dist.- Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 30-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sheikhpura Mahila P.S. Case No.11 of 2024 lodged under Sections 354 (a), 376, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and read with Section 67(a) of Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner against whom there is allegation that he is in contact with the informant in lieu of love and after preparing the video of their emotional relation make it viral on internet.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the contact of informant is itself not good and in this regard, the ward parishad of respective ward had written complaint against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Shiekh-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39477 of 2024(2) dt.30-05-2024 2/2 pura which is Annexure-2 of the bail petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 19.03.2024 having clean antecedent.

6. Counsel also submits that no offence has made out either under section 376 of I.P.C or under I.T. Act or any of the provision which has been attracted in the F.I.R. against the petitioner.

7. Upon specific query whether charge has been framed or not. Counsel submits that as per his knowledge, charge has not been framed till date.

8. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

9. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, let the petitioner above named, be granted bail, but only after framing of charge, if not framed, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Learned S.D.J.M Sheikhpura in connection with Sheikhpura mahila P.S. Case No. 11 of 2024 subject to the following conditions as laid down under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T