The single-judge bench rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, who faced allegations of outraging the modesty of the informant's daughter, citing supported prosecution circumstances.
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.7745 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-611 Year-2021 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL District-
Begusarai
======================================================
SOHIT RAJAK Son of Vishwanath Rajak Resident of Village - Koriya, P.S. - Muffasil, Dist. - Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sabal Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Rakesh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER
4 13-10-2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342 and 354(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegedly, it is a case of outraging the modesty of the daughter of the informant by the petitioner.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner has clean antecedent.
Learned APP appearing for the State opposed the anticipatory bail and submitted that the specific allegation against this petitioner is that he outraged the modesty of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7745 of 2022(5) dt.13-10-2022 2/2
victim who is the daughter of the informant. It appears from para-2 of the case diary which is re-statement of the informant and para no. 3, which is the statement of the victim and the statement of other independent witnesses at paras-7, 8 and 9 have supported the case of the prosecution.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J)
Brajesh Kumar/- U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case alleging outraging of modesty under Sections 341, 342 and 354(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code?
Sohit Rajak
The State Of Bihar
Sunil Kumar Panwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
