← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41175/2018rejected

Pradeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2018-08-18Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41175 of 2018 (3) dt.18-08-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41175 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -134 Year- 2018 Thana -SAHAR District- BHOJPUR ======================================================

1. Pradeep Kumar son of Late Ram Kumar Mahto resident of VillageBaruhi, P.S.- Sahar, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is in custody since 05.05.2018 in connection with Sahar P.S. Case No. 134 of 2018 for the offence registered under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had tried to molest the informant, Neha Kumari who came home running away and informed her mother, who in turn informed the father and father took the child to the thana and the present first information report was lodged. It is further submitted that because the petitioner has reprimanded the informant for not doing her home work, the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41175 of 2018 (3) dt.18-08-2018 present allegation has been leveled against he petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail.

Diary of the present case was called for which has since been received.

Learned counsel for the State, after perusal of the case diary, submits that there is sufficient material in the case diary to implicate the petitioner in connection with the present case, and therefore, the petitioner should not be granted privilege of bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.

(Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U T