Patna High CourtCR. MISC./71112/2019dismissed

Subodh Bind v. The State Of Bihar

2019-12-11Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71112 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2019 Thana- EKANGARSARAI District- Nalanda ====================================================== Subodh Bind Son of Fakira Bind, Resident of Village- Vishunpur, P.S.- Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Jagdhar Prasad, APP For the Informant :

Mr.Dhirendra Nath Jha, Advocate Mr.Kapil Deo Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 11-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Petitioner in the present case is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Ekangarsarai P.S. Case No. 177 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 354(a) (b)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8, 10, 12 of the POCSO Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to enmity and village politics. It is further submitted that the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not support the version of first information report.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71112 of 2019(2) dt.11-12-2019 2/2 Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, wherein it appears that when informant was going to attend the call of nature, the petitioner along with three unknown persons with bad intention caught the informant, gagged her mouth, caught her hair and took her to adjacent Primary School and tried to outrage her modesty and further that the victim is said to be a minor girl and her statement u/s. 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses of the case diary have supported the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is refused.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) vats/ved U T