Pintu Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2717 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Buxar ====================================================== 1.

Pintu Thakur S/O Sadhu Thakur Village- Badki Nainizor, Ps. Brahmpur, Dist. Buxar.

2.

Munna Thakur S/O Kalika Thakur Village- Badki Nainizor, Ps. Brahmpur, Dist. Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Akash Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 31-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Buxar Mahila P.S. Case No. 51 of 2023 dated 15.09.2023, lodged under Sections 379, 376(D) and 506 of the I.P.C. read with Section 67 of the I.T. Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against three named accused persons including the present petitioners. The allegation against them is that they have raped the victim and prepared a video. Subsequently, they used to call the informant but when she not visited again, then they have made the said video viral.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2717 of 2024(2) dt.31-01-2024 2/2 submits that the petitioners are in custody since 13.10.2023. He further submits that the petitioner no. 1 has no criminal antecedent and petitioner no. 2 has one criminal antecedent. He also submits that the compromise application has been filed which is Annexure-P2 in this case.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegation made in the F.I.R. is heinous. He also submits that in the rejection order, the said video and the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has been perused by the Court and thereafter, it was rejected.

6. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners and, therefore, their bail petition is hereby rejected.

7. Liberty is hereby granted to the petitioners that they may renew their prayer for bail three months after framing of charge.

8. With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

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