In a criminal miscellaneous matter, the Patna High Court dismissed the petitioner's application for bail in a case involving offences under Sections 354 and related IPC and IT Act provisions, refusing the prayer and directing removal of defects.
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 MISCELLANEOUS No.11584 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-330 Year-2021 Thana- MOKAMAH District- Patna
======================================================
Md Jainul Son of Idrish Resident of Village - Mokama Laheriya Tola, P.s.Mokama, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, A.P.P. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER
Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(a), 354(b), 504, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(E), 67, 67(A) of I.T. Act, 2020.
According to prosecution case, in brief, as contained in the written report of the informant, namely, Rita Devi is that, she went to Peoples Lab, Mokama for her treatment four years ago and during the treatment compounder opened her clothes and started vulgar activities. She protested his behaviour. During the treatment video made by the compounder. Further submitted that he always call on her mobile and talked in vulgar language. Then she complained about this to her husband. Her husband identify
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11584 of 2022(4) dt.12-09-2022 2/2
the accused, namely, Md. Jainul. On 29.10.2021 video was viraled on social media by accused.
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 in fact the petitioner is not a compounder and the place of occurrence is only a Sample Collection Centre for medical tests where petitioner was working as an Assistant. He further submits that the occurrence took place four years ago but the present F.I.R. was instituted on 29.10.2021.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. was supported by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and during investigation police has received the one Pen Drive in which occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. was recorded.
Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Mokama P.S. Case No. 330 of 2021 pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Barh, Patna.
Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Mdrashid/ Vanisha U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in the pending PS case.
Md Jainul
The State of Bihar
Rajesh Kumar Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
