Dismissed¶21

Vijay Prasad @ Vijay Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Mar 2024CR. MISC./1066/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.1066 of 2024, decided 19-03-2024 by Partha Sarthy, J. Regular bail application rejected. Offences: sections 292 and 34 IPC, section 12 POCSO Act, section 67 I.T. Act; Srinagar P.S. Case No.192 of 2022, District West Champaran. Allegations: threats to informant regarding her section 164 Cr.P.C. statement in an earlier kidnapping case; creation of fake Facebook IDs; uploading of objectionable photographs and videos of the informant and her younger sister; co-accused Sandeep Kumar also named. State relied on case diary paragraphs 15, 25, 28, 41, 70, 84. Custody since 22.11.2023; chargesheet submitted. Direction to trial court to expedite trial.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; bail refused. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial. ¶21

Vijay Prasad @ Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1066 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-192 Year-2022 Thana- SRINAGAR District- West Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Vijay Prasad @ Vijay Kumar Son of Late Sheo Pujan Mahto RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAGAHI BAGHEMBARPUR, P.S.- SHRINAGAR, DISTT.WEST CHAMPARAN

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 19-03-2024

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The petitioner has preferred this application for

¶13

grant of regular bail in connection with Srinagar P.S.Case no.192 of 2022 registered under sections 292 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, section 12 of the POCSO Act and section 67 of the I.T. Act.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, the informant states that on 4.4.2022 the nine named accused persons kidnapped her for which a case was lodged. It is stated that at the time of recording of statement for the said case of kidnapping, the petitioner herein threatened her that if she did not give favourable statement, the photos and videos of the informant would be made viral on the facebook. It is further stated by the

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1066 of 2024(3) dt.19-03-2024 2/3

¶16

informant that while she was living with her parents, the petitioner made an incorrect facebook ID and started uploading her objectionable photographs. It is further stated that coaccused Sandeep Kumar was also uploading the photographs. However, on her father protesting, they are not uploading photographs now. Once again on 25.12.2022 another fake ID was created and the videos of the younger sister of the informant was uploaded.

¶17

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Referring to the FIR it is submitted that the same is an offshoot of another case in which the petitioner has been enlarged on bail by the learned Court below itself on the basis of the statement of the informant under section 164 Cr.P.C. The petitioner in innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He is in custody since 22.11.2023 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

¶18

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State who submits that it has transpired in course of investigation that it was on the threats of this petitioner that the informant gave her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. in the earlier case. Further referring to the material that has transpired in course of investigation in paragraph nos. 15, 25,

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1066 of 2024(3) dt.19-03-2024 3/3

¶20

28, 41, 70 and 84 of the case diary it is submitted that it has transpired that objectionable photographs and videos of the informant was uploaded by the petitioner.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R. together with the material that has transpired in course of investigation, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

¶22

Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶23

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶24

Bibhash

¶25

U T

Vijay Prasad @ Vijay Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Prasad @ Vijay Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kameshwari Devi Vs Pramod Jha

Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Udgar Mehta @ Ramudgar Mehta Vs The State of Bihar

Ranvir Kumar @ C .D . @ Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar