Abhishek Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89895 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-320 Year-2024 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Abhishek Kumar S/O Shyamdeo Manjhi Village- Dumri Chapiya P.S.- Taraiya, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Mala Kumari W/O Munna Paswan Village- Parsauni Jahangir, P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Radhesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2025 Heard Mr. Radhesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 320 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 19.06.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 504, 506, 120(B), 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, the petitioner continuously blackmailed the informant in the name of private video recorded by the petitioner when she was taking shower and on the basis of that video, petitioner has established physical relationship with the informant continuously. Informant is a married lady and after the video was send to her husband by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89895 of 2024(4) dt.15-05-2025 2/2 petitioner, she has been ousted from her house.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it has come during investigation that the petitioner was involved in the present crime in question and the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C/183 of BNSS has categorically stated that on the pretext of deleting the videos, petitioner took Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand) from her.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 320 of 2024, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T