Sanjeev Sebastin Das v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60960 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-374 Year-2019 Thana- BUDDHACOLONY District- Patna ====================================================== Sanjeev Sebastin Das, S/o David Luis Resident of Anora Villa Lower Cheli Danga, P.S- Asansol, District- Bardhaman, West Bengal ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs.Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 12-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Buddha Colony P.S. Case No. 374 of 2019, registered for the offences under Section 501 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67(b) of the Information Technology Act.
3. As per prosecution case, the petitioner shot a number of photographs of the minor daughter of the informant and tried to seduce her by calling on her mobile number. Thereafter, when the informant tried to contact the petitioner, he did not pick up the call and rather started uploading the photographs of minor daughter of the informant in the Instagram account writing obscene message in her name and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60960 of 2025(2) dt.12-09-2025 2/2 tried to blackmail her.
4. This is the second attempt of the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail from this Court. Earlier, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected vide order dated 16.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.34480 of 2024 on merit and after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not find any new ground to reconsider the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to cite one reason as to why second anticipatory bail application should be entertained.
5. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is again rejected.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/- U T