Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51334/2017rejected

Md. Mokim @ Mokim Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

2017-12-21Mr. Justice Prakash Chandra Jaiswal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51334 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -556 Year- 2017 Thana -FORBESGANJ District- ARRARIA ====================================================== Md. Mokim @ Mokim Ansari S/o Mubarak , R/o Jumman Chowk Ward No.1 Kali Mela Road, P.S.- Forbesganj , District- Araria. .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Arif ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 21-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Forbesganj P.S. Case No. 556 of 2017 registered under Section 354-A, 354-B and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is said to have been running coaching classes and detaining the minor daughters of the informant after culmination of classes subjected them to sexual harassment.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case with an ulterior motive to grab handsome money by later on comprising the same. He has no concern with the aforesaid occurrence. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not alleged

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51334 of 2017 (04) dt.21-12-2017 - 2 - about committing of any sexual offence against the petitioner rather she simply stated that he used to disrobe him and them and kiss them. On medical examination of the victims no injury on any part of the person of the victim has been found and also no mark of sexual assault has been found. The petitioner has been languishing in custody since 20.07.2017.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) Trivedi/- U T