Amikesh Raj @ Mukhi Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60694 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2018 Thana- RAGHUNATHPUR District- Siwan ====================================================== Amikesh Raj @ Mukhi Singh, Son of Janeshwar Singh, Resident of VillageSinduar, P.S.- Daud Nagar, District- Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Nisha Kumari, D/o Anil Singh, Resident of village- Amvari, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amrit Abhijat, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Ram Chandra Sahni, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 21-02-2022 Heard the parties.

The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 67 of 2018 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A)/354D,420,387,509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information and Technology Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 08.10.2018, interim order was passed in this case restraining respondent from taking no coercive steps in connection with the police case. The petition came to be dismissed in default and was restored on 04.03.2020 and therefore, the interim order was also restored.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60694 of 2018(8) dt.21-02-2022 2/2 Learned counsel appearing for the informant informs that proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 has already been initiated against the petitioner for having absconding. This Court finds that apparently, the police authority may not have the knowledge about the restoration of the present petition and the proceedings having been initiated, however, it could be well advised that further proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 may not be taken recourse to.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner has already earlier filed a compliant against the informant and there appears to be a previous dispute between the parties without commenting further on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in the event of arrest he shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Anand Kr.

U T