Noor Mohammad Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27255 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2018 Thana- GAYGHAT District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Noor Mohammad Ansari, Son of Late Sahoob Ansari, resident of VillageBoaridih, P.S. Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Ramchandra Sahani, APP 124 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 07-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the informant and the State.

The petitioner is languishing in jail since 02.02.2018 in connection with Gaighat P.S. Case No. 23 of 2018 registered under Sections 376, 511, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he tried to commit an unnatural sexual offence with a seven years old child and, therefore, the present case has been occasioned. Diary in the present case was called for, which has been received.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire case is false and fabricated and has been occasioned on account of the fact that there is a dispute regarding advance

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27255 of 2018(4) dt.07-08-2018 2/2 which was given to the husband of the informant for making doors and windows. The present allegation has been occasioned only to wreck vengeance against the petitioner as he has been demanding back the money.

Learned counsel appearing for the State, after perusal the case diary, submits that the entire case against the petitioner has been found to be true and he was caught red handed and the victim-girl in her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code has categorically stated that role of the petitioner in the offence and, therefore, he should not be extended the privilege of bail.

Learned counsel for the informant also vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and there being material in the case diary to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

The prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected. (Anjana Mishra, J) Shamshad/- U T