Pankaj Prasad @ Pankaj Kumar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27486 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -327 Year- 2014 Thana -MADHUBANI TOWN DistrictMADHUBANI ====================================================== PANKAJ PRASAD @ PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD Son of Vijay Prasad resident of Village- Ujjan Dhanki Tole, P.S. Manigachhi DistrictDarbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 327 of 2014 for the offences instituted under Sections 341, 354(A), 354 (D), 504, 506, 509/34 of the I.P.C.and 66(A) of the I.T.Act,2008.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant Radhika Kumari being student of T.N.Singh Account Classes at Madhubani, was being teased and tortured through mobile and subsequently she was being abused and life threatening was also given to her.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. The informant in her

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27486 of 2016 (2) dt.13-07-2016 2/2 re-statement has not named this petitioner rather she has named one Pramod Kumar Mandal. The petitioner has no concern with the present incident. The other co-accused Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Mandal has been granted regular bail by the court below.

On behalf of the State it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and the specific allegation has been made by the informant against the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected. Anyhow, considering the nature of accusation made by the prosecution and the contradiction in the statement of the informant it is a case for consideration of regular bail. If the petitioner surrenders in the court below, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order taking into account the fact that the informant has retracted from her earlier statement. The same may be disposed of preferably on the same day.

With the aforesaid observation, the present application is disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, J) AnilKrSinha/- U T