Mithu Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37312 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S District- Supaul ====================================================== MITHU MUKHIYA Son of Ayodhi Mukhiya Resident of Village - Parasarma, Ward No. 7, P.S. - Supaul, District - Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 03-02-2021 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Binod Kumar, the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Supaul Mahila PS case no. 26 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354(B), 354(D), 292, 506, 509/34 of Indian Penal Code, 4/18 of POCSO Act and 67(B), 67(C) of IT Act.

The allegation is regarding the photographs of the daughter-in-law of the informant having been morphed into obscene photographs with ulterior motives, whereafter they were made viral. It is further alleged that upon inquiry, the informant came to know that the co-accused person namely Raushan Kumar had taken the photographs of the victim girl and got it modified and morphed with the help of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37312 of 2020(2) dt.03-02-2021 2/3 and had then made it viral. It is also alleged that the said Raushan Kumar used to engage in eve-teasing with the daughter-in-law of the informant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent, has been falsely implicated in the present case, is having a clean antecedent and is languishing in custody since 07.04.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the main allegation is against the co-accused Raushan Kumar and the petitioner is having no complicity in the matter.

Per contra, the learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taken into account the materials available on record. From a bare perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that no substantial allegation has been levelled against the petitioner by the informant. Accordingly, I deem it fit and appropriate to release the abovenamed petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37312 of 2020(2) dt.03-02-2021 3/3 learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI, Supaul in connection with Supaul Mahila PS case no. 26 of 2020. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/- U T