Ankit Kumar @ Tinku @ Ankit Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68990 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Aurangabad ====================================================== ANKIT KUMAR @ TINKU @ ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Son of Ajay Singh R/V- Kutumba, P.S- Kutumba, Dist- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 27-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mahila P.S. Case No. 06 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 341, 448, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Aurangabad. As per prosecution case, the petitioner entered into the house of the informant and started teasing her. When she raised alarm, the petitioner started pressing her neck. On hearing hulla, the father of the informant came for rescue by then the petitioner fled away.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. He submits that earlier the bail application was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 30809

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68990 of 2022(2) dt.27-02-2023 2/2 of 2019 dated 09.05.2019. He submits that the petitioner has given benefit of Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. by the police and now charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has filed this application. He further submits that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner as mentioned in para 3 of this application.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the fact that earlier the bail of the petitioner was rejected, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order considering the fact that the petitioner is a student.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T