Bittu Chouhan @ Bittu Kumar Chouhan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45592 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-196 Year-2022 Thana- PURNEA SADAR District- Purnia ====================================================== Bittu Chouhan @ Bittu Kumar Chouhan Son Of Muni Lal Chouhan Resident Of Khuskibagh, Purnea East, P.S.- Sadar, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Veena Kumari Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

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

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sadar P.S. Case No. 196 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Purnea.

Allegation against the petitioner is that the daughter of the informant was taken by the petitioner by alluring her. The informant has a fear that any wrong thing may happen with his daughter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner that no such

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45592 of 2022(5) dt.03-03-2023 2/2 occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that there is no evidence or any material that before the occurrence the petitioner and the victim were known to each other. He further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., in which she has supported the prosecution case. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 196 of 2022.

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

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