Chhotan Miyan @ Chhotan Hussain v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44668 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2019 Thana- BIKRAMGANJ District- Rohtas ====================================================== Chhotan Miyan @ Chhotan Hussain S/O Husnain Sha @ Md. Husnain Sah Resident of village- Guljarbag, P.S.- Bikramganj, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Majid Mahboob Khan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 01-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bikramganj P.S. Case No.216 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323. 354D, 354, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.04.2019 at about 10.00 a.m., the informant was coming back to her home after attending coaching class. At that time, the petitioner stopped his motorcycle in front of her and used obscene words. When the informant made protest, the petitioner started giving

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44668 of 2022(2) dt.01-12-2022 2/2 slaps to the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail petition. It is further submitted that the fact of the matter is that the petitioner was working as a mason in the house of the informant and some dispute arose with regard to wage.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Sanjay/- U T