Sujal Goenka v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59069 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-490 Year-2023 Thana- BHAGALPUR KOTWALI DistrictBhagalpur ====================================================== SUJAL GOENKA S/O PRAMOD GOENKA R/O DAWARIKAPURI COLONY, P.S. - KOTWALI (JOGSAR) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Neerad Parashar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umesh Lal Verma For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 29-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also learned counsel appearing for the informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kotwali (Josgar) P.S. Case No. 490 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections-419, 420, 384, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 67 of the I.T. Act.

3. Prosecution case in short is that the petitioner had friendship with the informant's daughter. Allegation against the petitioner is of misbehaving with informant's daughter. The petitioner used to pressurize the informant's daughter for involving her in objectionable and anti-social activity. On refusal, the petitioner threatened her to do the objectionable photograph viral by uploading on social media. Further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59069 of 2023(4) dt.29-02-2024 2/2 allegation is that the petitioner forwarded the objectionable photograph of the informant's daughter on his mobile and demanded a ransom of Rs. 20,000,00/- (twenty lakhs).

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He has further submitted that as a matter of fact, the informant's daughter had love affairs with the petitioner which was not acceptable to the informant and for that reason, this false case has been instituted against the petitioner to put pressure upon him.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State and the informant opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. It has been submitted on behalf of the informant that perusal of paragraph-60 of the case diary discloses that the petitioner used to forward messages with slang languages on the mobile of the informant and also used to threaten him of dire consequences.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail and accordingly, the same is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T