Vimal Jha @ Vimal Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72537 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2022 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur ====================================================== Vimal Jha @ Vimal Kumar Jha Son Of Mahendra Jha Resident Of VillageWard No. 4, Narghoghi, P.S.- Sarairanjan, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-04-2023 Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to make necessary correction in Paragraph 7 of the petition, during the course of the day.

Permission is accorded.

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sarairanjan P.S. Case No.138 of 2022, for the offences registered under Sections 363, 366(A), 341, 323, 509, 501 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and under Section 67 of the I.T. Act.

Submission has been made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor there is allegation of any overt act against him, rather the name of the petitioner has surfaced in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. However, even in the statement of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72537 of 2022(2) dt.29-04-2023 2/2 the victim, no allegation has been leveled that he is anyway misbehaved with the victim girl. It is further submitted that the petitioner is having fair antecedent, apart from the fact that delay has occurred in lodging of the FIR.

On the other hand, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner is the person in whose house the victim was kept confined.

Regard being had to the submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the allegation of harbouring the main accused and providing accommodation to him to facilitate the crime in question, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and accordingly his prayer stands rejected.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to surrender and seeks regular bail within a period of four weeks and in case of his surrender, the learned court below will consider his case without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

(Harish Kumar, J) manoj/- U T