Ganesh Prasad Gupta v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40546 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jamui ====================================================== Ganesh Prasad Gupta S/o Jugal Prasad @ Yugal Kishore Gupta R/o VillageBodhwan Talab, P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sanju Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Fahimuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2025
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Mahila Police Station Case No. 68 of 2024, disclosing offences under Sections 126(1), 115(2), 74, 76 of the BNS, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 30.12.2024 at 2:30 in the night, as soon as informant came out of the room to defecate, her brother-in-law Ganesh Prasad Gupta (petitioner) near the exchange office suddenly grabbed her by the palm, pressing her mouth and threw her on the stool. He lifted her nighty and forcibly tried to rape her. She somehow started screaming, her daughter ran towards her and started calling mummy mummy, then he left her. Informant's brother-in-law i.e.,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40546 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 2/2 petitioner's wife is dead and her husband lives in Deoghar and runs a shop. Petitioner has been harassing the informant for the past several months.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner is an old man. Petitioner and informant are having land dispute. He next submits that independent witnesses have given false statement due to land dispute between the parties.
5. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. This application is, accordingly, rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) HarshPandey/- U T