Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31106/2016rejected

Satya Narayan @ Satya Narayan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2016-08-19Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31106 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -306 Year- 2016 Thana -KHAGARIA District- KHAGARIA ======================================================

1. Satya Narayan @ Satya Narayan Prasad S/o Late Dulichandra Das Resident of village Main Road Mungeriya Chowk P.S & District Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Roy, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.Dayal APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 19-08-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dayal APP for the State.

The petitioner along with two others are accused of Khagaria P.S. case No. 306 of 2016, registered under Sections 354A and 354 D of the IPC.

The informant, is the father of the two daughters, who, according to the allegation, was consistently teased by the son and nephew of the petitioner. There is also allegation that in his presence the two other accused persons used to pass remarks and obstruct the two girls while on way to home. According to the First Information Report, this was the regular affairs. Contention of the petitioner is that he is only the father and uncle of the two other accused persons. It is not the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31106 of 2016 (2) dt.19-08-2016 2/2 allegation that the teasing or attempt to outrage the modesty of the two girls was done with the approval of the petitioner. Learned APP opposed the prayer and states that there is allegation in the First Information Report itself that the two accuseds used to tease and pass remarks even in presence of the petitioner .

Considering the nature of the allegations, I am not persuaded to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer is, accordingly, rejected. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U T