Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22704/2016rejected

Rupesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2016-07-14Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22704 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -36 Year- 2016 Thana -DHAMDAHA District- PURNIA ======================================================

1. Rupesh Singh Son of Anil Singh R/o village - Bansi Purandaha, P.S. Dhamdaha, District - Purnea .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Bidhu Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dinesh Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 14-07-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under section 376/34 of the I.P.C Allegedly, after giving assurance to marry with the informant the petitioner developed love affair with her and thereafter developed physical relationship with her resulting the informant became pregnant but now the petitioner is not ready to marry with her. It is alleged that the informant earlier was working in the house of the petitioner as house-maid and the petitioner started developing love affair with her, then his family members stopped her from working, inspite of that the petitioner developed physical relationship at the house of the informant.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22704 of 2016 (3) dt.14-07-2016 2/2 Submission is of false implication and that the prosecution story appears not probable and reliable, the informant has been medically examined and she has been found aged 18-25 years, only with a view to extract money the informant has lodged this false case after much delay and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration, to which the learned A.P.P. opposes by submitting that the petitioner developed physical relationship with the informant when she was minor after giving false promise to marry with her and as such the petitioner does not deserve bail. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 36 of 2016 pending in the court of C.J.M. Purnea. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T