Kundan Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27374 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2024 Thana- PRANPUR District- Katihar ====================================================== Kundan Kumar Mandal Son of Darogi Mandal R/o Village- Kabilpur, P.S.- Pranpur, Dist.- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare For the Informant :

Mr.Amrendra Kumar Mr.Jitendra Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 31-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Pranpur P.S. Case No. 14 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 376, 406, 420, 504/34 of the IPC.

3. As per allegation, the petitioner used to have physical relation with the informant. Thereafter, the informant got married to someone else. Further, the petitioner broke down the married life of the informant by instigating her in-laws. The petitioner refused to marry her and his family members abused and assaulted the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27374 of 2024(4) dt.31-07-2024 2/2

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He is a person of clean antecedent. He has submitted further that the informant allured the petitioner and made pressure for marriage. The informant refused for her medical examination. The petitioner is under custody since 27.01.2024.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from perusal of the case diary and materials available on the record, it appears that the petitioner used to have physical relation with the informant for last six years, on the pretext of marriage and eventually, he refused to marry her. The victim, in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., has supported the prosecution case.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege for bail, which is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T