Aman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28098 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Rohtas ====================================================== AMAN KUMAR S/O MUNNA CHAUDHARY R/O VILLAGE KATAR, P.S INDRAPURI , DISTRICT- ROHTAS.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-02-2022 Heard the parties through video conferencing. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
Let the defect(s) be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The petitioner, who is in custody since 13.12.2020, seeks regular bail in connection with Rohtas Mahila P.S. Case No. 44 of 2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant was in love affairs with the petitioner and on the pretext of marriage, the petitioner made physical relationship with her. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28098 of 2021(6) dt.09-02-2022 2/3 implicated in this case. He further submits that victim is major and she made relation with the petitioner accordingly to her sweet will. Learned A.P.P. for the State has, vehemently, opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. He further submits that as per the medical report, it appears that the victim is not virgin and the allegation of sexual relationship between the parties also not denied and the petitioner has deceive the victim girl by giving her false assurance of marriage and as such the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.
Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration that the petitioner as well as informant are of same age and there is every possibility that due to the intervention of the family members of both the sides, they may arrive at amicable settlement to solemnize the marriage of the informant with the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on provisional bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Mahila P.S. Rohtas Case No. 44 of 2020.
The learned Court below after verifying the conduct of both the parties shall take a decision either to confirm the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28098 of 2021(6) dt.09-02-2022 3/3 provisional bail or to cancel the same in the facts of the case and on such conditions he may deem fit and proper. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application is disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J) manish/- U T