Ram Bharosh Kumar @ Ram Bharosh Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20772 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2022 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur ====================================================== Ram Bharosh Kumar @ Ram Bharosh Mahto Son Of Munshi Lal Mahto R/OSurauli, P.S.-BIBHUTIPUR, Distt.-SAMASTIPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Salita Devi Wife Of Mahendra Mahto R/O-Surauli, P.S.-BIBHUTIPUR, Distt.-SAMASTIPUR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raja Ram Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 02-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 30 of 2022 in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 323, 379 and 354B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner entered into the house of the complainant and tried to outrage her modesty. The petitioner also threatened the complainant with pistol and snatched ear ring and mangal sutra worth Rs. 80,000/- from the complainant. He also threatened to kill the children of the complainant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20772 of 2024(2) dt.02-04-2024 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case as the complainant had taken money from the petitioner and she wanted to grab the money. For this reason she has filed the cases against the petitioner though the petitioner is having online payment receipts made in favour of the complainant. Further, the complaint has been lodged after delay of 11 days for which there is no explanation. The petitioner is having criminal antecedent of one case and the said case was also lodged by this complainant.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and considering the history of monetory transaction and further considering the delay in lodging the case and also considering the possibility of false implication, let the petitioner above named, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court concerned, Samastipur in connection with Complaint Case No. 30 of 2022, subject to conditions as laid

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20772 of 2024(2) dt.02-04-2024 3/3 down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. The application stands allowed.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Prakash/- U