Arun Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43979 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Purnia ====================================================== Arun Mandal Son Of Budhdev Mandal Resident Of Village - Singhia, Ward No. 08, P.S. K. Nagar (champa Nagar), District - Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Adv.

:

Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Sr. Adv For the Informant :

Mr. Anand Prakash, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sudama Kumar, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 10-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 27 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 354B, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

As per the prosecution story, the petitioner brought the informant's daughter for opening of Bank account at Purnea and at the time of returning on the way, he tried to outrage her modesty and threatened her.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is further submitted vide para 8 of the petition that the husband of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43979 of 2022(4) dt.10-01-2023 2/2 the informant has taken ten thousand rupees six months ago for construction of his house but he did not return the same, instead of returning the money, the informant falsely implicated the petitioner in this present case. It is further submitted that the occurrence as alleged happened in broad day light and no any witnesses supported the prosecution story. Petitioner is in custody since 10.6.2022.

Learned APP appearing for the state and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the victim is minor and in her statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., she stated that the petitioner outraged her modesty and attempt to commit wrong.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) shubham/- U T