Umanand Kumar Das @ Umanand Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25315 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2023 Thana- PIPRA District- Supaul ====================================================== Umanand Kumar Das @ Umanand Das Son Of Shanti Das Resident Of Village- Ramangar, Ward No. 16, Ps- Pipra, Dist- Supaul ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Soni Kumari D/O- Late Bhagwat Tanti W/O-Umanand Das Vill-Ramnagar Ward-16 Ps-Pipra Dist-Supaul At Present- Vill-Jaipura Ward-2 Ps-Sankarpur Dist-Madhepura ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Rupa Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Parties :

Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin, Addl Public Prosecutor Mr. Karunakant Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-06-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the informant/ opposite party no.2.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 376, 495, 354,323, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner committed rape on wife of his elder brother. It is further alleged that the petitioner married her and lived with her for about six years. Thereafter, on 10.2.2023 petitioner, in collusion with his family members, performed marriage with some other lady, namely, Kajal Kumari. On protest, the petitioner and his family members subjected her to cruelty and harassment and they also tried to kill her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, informant is legally wedded wife of his elder brother and they are blessed with two children out of the said wedlock. Brother of the informant was living outside for quite sometime to earn livelihood and when he returned and started

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25315 of 2024(3) dt.28-06-2024 2/2 staying in the house, frequent movement of informant was restricted due to which she became furious and she lodged the instant case against whole family members. Petitioner claims clean antecedent. Petitioner is in custody since 10.10.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party no.2 oppose the prayer for bail. It is submitted by opposite party no.2 that there is direct and specific allegation of rape against the petitioner. Even, the victim in her 161 CrP.C. & 164 Cr.P.C statements have supported the prosecution case. During course of investigation, witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation and the aforesaid statements of the victim, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T