Bittu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85849 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-496 Year-2024 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== Bittu kumar Son of Vijay Kumar Resident of village- Laugain, ps- Amarpur District -Banka ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Putul Devi Wife of Randhir Kumar Resident of Village- Laugain, PSAmarpur District -Banka ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Nayan, learned APP for the State.
2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No. 496 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS, Section 12 of POCSO Act and Section 67(A) of I.T. Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the daughter of the informant used to talk with the petitioner on mobile. It is further alleged that the petitioner has made obscene video of the daughter of the informant and was blackmailing her. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85849 of 2024(3) dt.10-01-2025 2/2 alleged that this petitioner has also threatened to make the video viral. This petitioner has shared that video with one Nayan Kumar who has made the video viral.
4. During course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case.
5. In contra, learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail of the petitioner. He submits that from perusal of the FIR it is clear that the main thrust of allegation is against this petitioner who has made the obscene video of the daughter of the informant.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) durgesh/- U T