Allowed

Anwar Ansari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Jun 2020CR. MISC./10361/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Patna granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case alleging offences under Section 341 IPC and POCSO. The court noted unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the parties being co-villagers, and the absence of charges under IPC Section 354 or POCSO provisions. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Special Judge within six weeks and provide grounds for bail upon a

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge within six weeks.

Anwar Ansari Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10361 of 2020

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2018 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

ANWAR ANSARI Son of Majgul Miya Resident of Village - Dudha Chaturi, Police Station - Majhauliya, District - West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar No 7 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 17-06-2020

¶12

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State, through Video Conferencing.

¶13

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Majhauliya Police Station Case No. 331 of 2018, disclosing offences under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶14

The allegation against the petitioner, as per the First Information Report, is that at about 3 PM on 06.07.2018, when the informant was returning home, the petitioner stopped her on the way, caught her and tried to take her in the nearby sugarcane field and when the informant tried to stop him, the petitioner assaulted her, due to which she fell down on the ground.

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10361 of 2020(2) dt.17-06-2020 2/3

¶16

Thereafter the informant raised alarm and on hearing her alarm, her schoolmate came there and the petitioner fled away. It has further been alleged that the petitioner used to tease her regularly and on 12.07.2018 also, when the informant went to mango orchard to bring mango, the petitioner arrived there and started assaulting the informant by catching her and then the informant narrated the whole story to her mother, which led to the institution of the present First Information Report.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged and he has falsely been implicated in this case due to dispute between the parties relating to mango orchard. He further submits that the first incident has allegedly been taken place on 06.07.2018 and the second incident has taken place on 12.07.2018, but the First Information Report has been lodged, after a lapse of about 16 days, on 29.07.2018 with premeditated mind. He further submits that both the parties are co-villagers and the police, after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet only under Sections 341/354 of the Indian Penal Code and not under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He further submits that offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is bailable and from

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10361 of 2020(2) dt.17-06-2020 3/3

¶19

perusal of the materials on record, it appears that no offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

¶20

Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that both the parties are co-villagers and there is unexplained delay in lodging of the First Information Report, I am inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶21

This application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶22

Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge (SC/ST/POCSO), West Champaran, at Bettiah, in connection with Majhauliya Police Station Case No. 331 of 2018, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶23

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)

¶24

Prabhakar Anand/-

¶25

U √ T √

Anwar Ansari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar Ansari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Anand Kumar Sah @ Amit Kr. Sah Vs the State of Bihar

Baiju Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Munna Paswan Vs the State of Bihar

Ravi Ranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pramod Singh Vs the State of Bihar