Mannu Sharma @ Munnu Sharma @ Munna Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.40076 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -412 Year- 2017 Thana -PATLIPUTRA District- PATNA ======================================================
1. MANNU SHARMA @ MUNNU SHARMA @ MUNNA KUMAR S/oJai Shankar Sharma @ Jai Shankar Prasad Sharma, R/o- H.No- 614, Nehru Nagar, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Samrendra Kr. Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 12-07-2018 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Patliputra Nagar P.S. case No. 412 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 342, 323, 504, 354(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act. The informant alleged that while her daughter was going to attend the call of nature the petitioner caught her hand and tried to drag her inside the house in order to outrage her modesty. When his daughter protested on such the petitioner fled away but later on the petitioner came along with other accused persons and abused the informant.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40076 of 2018 (2) dt.12-07-2018 2/2 the informant and petitioner are tenants in the same house. Some dispute arose due to use of latrine and that is why this case has been lodged. Another accused person, namely, Kundan Sharma @ Kunnu Sharma, brother of the petitioner, has already been granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.04.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15608 of 2018. The case has already been compromised but it appears that there is specific allegation that it was the petitioner who made an attempt to outrage the modesty of the daughter of the informant while she was going to ease out and the case of the brother of petitioner is on different footing than the case of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/Rajan U T