Sanjay Sah @ Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81977 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2023 Thana- KISHANPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== SANJAY SAH @ SANJAY KUMAR S/O GANESHI SAH @ GANESH PRASAD SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- THARBITTA (NEAR RAILWAY STATION), P.S.- KISHANPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhaskar Shankar, Adv.

For the State/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 05-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Kishanpur P.S. Case No.132 of 2023 lodged under Section 376 of the I.P.C. read with Section 66(E) of I.T. Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against the present petitioner and one other accused against whom there is allegation of commission of section 376 of I.P.C. crime against the informant's victim.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged only with a view to create pressure upon the petitioner as the informant is the worker in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81977 of 2023(3) dt.05-03-2024 2/2 premises of the petitioner.

5. Counsel further submits that there is one criminal case pending against him in which he is on bail and he is in custody since 14.08.2023. He submits that petitioner is ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him.

6. Counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the statement of informant has taken place before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which has been acknowledged by the rejection order of the sessions court in which she has supported all the allegations made in the F.I.R..

7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

8. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected at this stage, but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail 3 months after framing of charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T