Anup Thakur @ Anup Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54425 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-737 Year-2020 Thana- GOPALGANJ TOWN DistrictGopalganj ====================================================== ANUP THAKUR @ ANUP KUMAR SON OF KAILASH THAKUR R/O VILLAGE- GUTHANI, P.S.- GUTHANI, DISTRICT- SIWAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Indrajeet Bhushan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satya Nand Shukla Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 354(B), 384, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11(V) of the POCSO Act.

As per the prosecution case, the petitioner took the picture of informant's daughter on the plea of pasting the same on coaching poster, but it is alleged that after editing the picture of informant's daughter, the petitioner started blackmailing her. It is further alleged that when informant went to talk in this regard to petitioner, the petitioner threatened to kill all his family members, if does not marry his daughter with petitioner and lastly, on 22.12.2020, the informant saw some indecent photographs of his daughter using filthy language.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54425 of 2021(4) dt.19-07-2022 2/2 It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated and no such occurrence, as alleged in the F.I.R., took place. As a matter of fact, there was love affairs between petitioner and daughter of informant and they had decided to marry each other. In the meantime, petitioner moved to Delhi to earn money and got employed in Muthoot Finance Co. and only when informant came to know about relationship, he became infuriated and lodged this false case. However, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against petitioner, who is owner of coaching centre, for affixing four indecent photographs of informant's daughter using filthy language.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay/- U T