Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14555/2020rejected

Vikrant Kumar @ Vicky v. The State Of Bihar

2020-07-06Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14555 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-269 Year-2019 Thana- DELHA District- Gaya ====================================================== VIKRANT KUMAR @ VICKY Son of Bhawani Seth Resident of Village - Tandwa, P.S.- Tandwa, Dist.- Aurangabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravindra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pancha Nand Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 06-07-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Delha P.S. Case No. 269 of 2019 registered under sections 376/120(B)/34 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-IV, Gaya.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. No such occurrence took place as alleged in the first information report. Further submission is that petitioner is in custody since 25.12.2019, having no criminal antecedent. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel for the informant, Mrs. Alka Pande, vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14555 of 2020(4) dt.06-07-2020 2/2 petitioner is named in the first information report with direct allegation. Medical report also corroborates the allegation as alleged. It is further submitted that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. specifically stated that the petitioner has committed the illegal act with her on the assurance of marriage, due to which the victim committed suicide, as detailed in paragraph 88 of the case diary. Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for bail.

Accordingly, prayer for grant of regular bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) shailendra/- U T