Kanhai Sah @ Radhe Shyam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76956 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2024 Thana- TARIYANI CHAPRA PS DistrictSheohar ====================================================== Kanhai Sah @ Radhe Shyam Kumar S/O Jahannu Sah Resident of VillageChamanpur, Police Station- Sheohar, Distt.- Sheohar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Dileep Mahto S/O Jailal Mahto R/O Village- Ganga Dharampur, P.STariyani Chapra, Distt.- Sheohar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ayush Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy, APP For the Informant : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-04-2025 Heard Mr.Ayush Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Tariyani Chapra P.S. Case No.62 of 2024, dated 09.08.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4)/76/78/79/351(2)/352/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.) 2023 and later on Sections 8/10 of POCSO Act has been added.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith co-accused person, namely, Varun Sah entered into

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76956 of 2024(4) dt.16-04-2025 2/3 the house of the of the informant and outrage the modesty of the daughter of the informant. When she resisted, petitioner and coaccused person, namely, Varun Sah threatened her and petitioner forcibly took her objectionable videos and pictures and torn her clothe. Now they are blackmailing the victim girl to marry otherwise they will viral the photo and video of the girl.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and apart from that, it appears from the FIR itself that the date of occurrence as alleged in the FIR is 03.08.2024 but the present FIR has been instituted on 09.08.2024 after delay of six days without giving any explanation of delay.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C./ Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 in which she has supported the case of the prosecution and apart from that, she has categorically stated that the petitioner has torn her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76956 of 2024(4) dt.16-04-2025 3/3 clothe.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of allegation as alleged in the FIR, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Tariyani Chapra P.S. Case No.62 of 2024 pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge 1st cumSpecial Judge, POCSO, Sheohar.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T