Sonu @ Farhan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68423 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2024 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran ====================================================== Sonu @ Farhan Son of Neshar Ahmad @ Md. Hasbuddin Resident of Village - Santpur, P.S. - Nautan, District-West Champaran, Bettiah. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Md. Alam @ Md. Manan Son of Late Afjal Miya Resident of Village - Santpur, P.S. - Nautan, District-West Champaran, Bettiah. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP Mr. Adarsh Ranjan, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant/opp.party no. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 379, 448, 354-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per prosecution case, on 26.02.2024 at about 8 AM, while minor daughter of the informant was alone at home, this petitioner entered in the house and started outraging her modesty and when the victim raised alarm, this petitioner kicked on her abdomen, due to which, she started bleeding. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68423 of 2024(4) dt.09-01-2025 2/2 alleged that when mother of victim came to save victim, this petitioner also assaulted her and snatched her gold ear ring worth Rs. 20,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to land dispute between the parties, this false and concocted case has been lodged. As per F.I.R., the alleged occurrence took place on 26.02.2024, but F.I.R. was lodged on 01.03.2024 and there is no plausible explanation of delay. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that there is specific accusation against this petitioner that he outraged the modesty of the minor daughter of informant and doctor has found three injuries on the person of victim.
6. Considering the same, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T