The Patna High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail. The Court held that given the serious nature of offences including attempted outrage of modesty under IPC and POCSO, the case was not fit for bail.
Anticipatory bail to the appellant was rejected and the appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.768 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-346 Year-2018 Thana- DHANARUA District- Patna
======================================================
VIKASH KUMAR S/o Ram Ratan Sav R/o Village- Rampur Sain, P.S.Dhanarua, District- Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Nityanand Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.Usha Kumari 1 ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER
4 21-06-2019
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the State.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.11.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, IV-cumSpecial Judge, Patna (SC/ST Act) in A.B.P. No. 8081 of 2018 in connection with Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 346 of 2018 corresponding to Special Case No. 519 of 2018 registered under sections 457, 354B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(t) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and section 11 of the POCSO Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no date mentioned in the first information
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.768 of 2019(4) dt.21-06-2019 2/2
report as to on which date the alleged occurrence took place. Appellant is a man of clean antecedent.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State submits that there is direct allegation that this appellant tried to outrage the modesty of informant’s daughter on the point of pistol.
Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. The same is, therefore, rejected.
The appeal, thus, stands dismissed.
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
mcv/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the file is fit for grant of anticipatory bail given the nature of allegations under sections 457, 354B, 506 IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the delay in the FIR report affects the grant of bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Vikash Kumar
State of Bihar
Arvind Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
