Suraj Kumar @ Surya v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 376(D), 504, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 s. 4
- Information Technology Act, 2000 ss. 67, 67(A)
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER Mr.Ranjit Jha Mr.Shantanu Kumar 4 21-06-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376(D), 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Sections 67, 67(A) of the IT Act. Earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 05.12.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42835 of
2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that from perusal of the entire case diary and other materials available on record, the learned court below has not found the petitioner guilty, as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18849 of 2023(4) dt.21-06-2023 However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail. From perusal of the materials available on record, I do not find any new ground to consider the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner again. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2022. devendra/- U T (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.