Md. Afroj Jakir @ Md. Afroj Jafri @ Ujala v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58491 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2019 Thana- KISHUNPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Md. Afroj Jakir @ Md. Afroj Jafri @ Ujala, Aged about 21 years, Male, Son of Md. Jafar, Resident of Village Navada Ward No. 6, P.S. Madhepur, District Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Girish Chandra Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Nafisuzzoha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Kishanpur P.S. Case No.64 of 2019, registered under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354(B), 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that on 15.02.2019, the petitioner who was teaching the daughter of the informant and other girls called the daughter of the informant after closing of the school and made all attempt to outrage her modesty but somehow the daughter of the informant fled away crying from the place of occurrence. The petitioner immediately thereafter fled away. The petitioner did not lodge the case only to save the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58491 of 2019(2) dt.19-09-2019 2/2 prestige and bad name of his daughter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant was pressurising the petitioner to marry with the victim and when the petitioner refused this case has been lodged after about 40 days of the alleged date of occurrence and this fact itself casts a reasonable and serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case but it appears that not only the victim but other witnesses also have stated that the petitioner made abortive attempt to outrage the modesty of the daughter of the informant and thereafter also the petitioner threatened the victim of dire consequences on telephone.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid and nature of allegations made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T