Md Aman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53670 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2019 Thana- DHAMDAHA District- Purnia ====================================================== Md Aman Son Of Hafijur Rahman Resident Of Nirpur, P.S- Dhamdaha, DistPurnea ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the Office, within a period of four weeks.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraph 1 of the application in course of the day.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 73 of 2019 registered under Sections 341, 347, 377, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act. The prosecution allegation, in short, is that the accused persons committed unnatural offence with the informant who is a minor.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53670 of 2021(3) dt.09-03-2022 2/2 petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The case has been instituted after two days of the alleged occurrence. As per the medical examination report, the age of the victim is said to be 19-20 years. Hence, no offence under POCSO Act is attracted in the present case.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Five persons including the petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under section 377 of I.P.C. As per the medical examination report of the victim, it suggests that there are injury on the private part of the victim. The doctor opined that unnatural sex was performed upon the victim.

Considering the nature of accusation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer is rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders in the Court below and prays for bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/- U T