Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2411/2016rejected

Rafik Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

2016-03-16Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2411 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -20 Year- 2015 Thana -SAMASTIPUR GRP CASE DistrictSAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Rafik Ansari S/o Late Jugai Ansari, resident of village- Mohan Barahi, Fulwariya tola, P.S.-- Purnahiya, District- Sheohar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Thakur For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Rail Darbhanga (Sitamarhi) P.S. Case No. 20 of 2015 registered under sections 376, 366A of the I.P.C. and section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act pending in the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur.

The allegation of informant Rubina Khatoon is that she used to reside with her father at the brick kiln in Nepal in connection with doing the work of labourer, where the petitioner Rafix Ansari is her own relation also used to do work. When her father went his villager to see ailing mother then she was being raped by the petitioner. Thereafter, she was asked by the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2411 of 2016 (3) dt.16-03-2016 2/2 to go her house and then she was boarded at train and in the way, the petitioner asked to go at his house so that he may perform marriage but in the way, she informed the Police then the petitioner was apprehended by the Railway Police and she was also sent at Mahila Police Station.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in fact, father of the petitioner took a land of Rs. 5000/- and on demand, he got managed to implicate the petitioner by his daughter with false allegation. It is also submitted that petitioner is in custody since 27.04.2015.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for bail is rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Shail/- U T