Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Kumar Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14935 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -49 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA PS District- GOPALGANJ ======================================================

1. Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Kumar Yadav son of Dhanraj Yadav

2. Raju Yadav @ Raju Kr. Yadav son of Dhanraj Yadav

3. Dhanraj Yadav son of Jai Govind Chaudhary All are residents of village - Shivsthan, P.S. - Thawe, District - Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amri Abhijat For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Upendra Yadav For informant : Mr. Ajit Kumar. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 07-04-2017 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Gopalganj Mahila P.S. Case No. 49 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 354B, 506/34 Indian Penal Code, under Section 66(a)(c) of I.T. Act and later on added Section 13/14 of POCSO Act.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that allegation against petitioner no. 1 is that he circulated the nude images of the informant on whatsapp and allegation against petitioner no. 2 is that his mobile was used in circulating the said images and against petitioner no. 3 only general and omnibus allegation has been levelled, however all the allegations levelled against these petitioners are false and concocted and petitioners

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14935 of 2017 (2) dt.07-04-2017 2/2 have been made accused in this case only because there was a land dispute between the parties.

Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that earlier to filing of the present case, petitioners used to tease her and also tried to outrage the modesty of the informant, for which her father had lodged a case and only to take revenge, they have committed such an offence to put pressure on the informant and her father to withdraw the earlier case filed by them.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, I am not inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of anticipatory bail, it is accordingly rejected.

Let petitioners surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail, which will be considered by the court below on the merit of the case, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T