Rohit Kumar @ Alok Verma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.58330 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -666 Year- 2015 Thana -AHIAPUR District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Rohit Kumar @ Alok Verma Son of late Nand Kishore Verma Resident of Village & Po Mahindwara, P.s Runni Saidpur, District Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Prakash For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. U.S.P.Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 24-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 666 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 376 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant/victim made allegation against the petitioner that after giving assurance of marriage the petitioner developed physical relationship with her twice and thereafter refused to marry and snatched mobile and cash of Rs. 5,000/- With the help of local people the petitioner was caught and brought at the police station. During investigation the victim refused to be medically examined vide para 33 of the case diary and further she in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, did not

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58330 of 2015 (3) dt.24-02-2016 2/2 support the allegation of rape and has stated that as the petitioner snatched his mobile and cash then she lodged the case vide para 59 of the case diary.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Learned C.J.M., Muzaffarpur, in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 666 of 2015, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) siddharth/- U T