Manish Raj @ Golu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11900 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-339 Year-2022 Thana- BOCHAHAN District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== MANISH RAJ @ GOLU KUMAR Son of Lal Babu Thakur R/v- Paranti, P.S.- Bochahan, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Hari Kishore Thakur, Advocate For the State :

Mrs. Shaheen Begum, APP For the Informant : Kumari Sujata Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 19-06-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Bochahan P.S. Case No. 376/34 registered for the offences punishable under Section 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act pending in the Court of learned A.D.J.- cum-Special Judge POCSO Act, Muzaffarpur.

While the informant had gone to take grass for the cattle, the petitioner is said to have committed rape against her and promised to marry her and also warned not to disclose the matter to anyone otherwise she will be killed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity and dirty

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11900 of 2023(3) dt.19-06-2023 2/2 village politics. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was in love with the informant and there was consensual relation between them and both are major. It is further submitted that there is inordinate and abnormal delay of six months without assigning any plausible and convincing reason for the said delay. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that considering the nature of the allegation, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T