Golu Kumar @ Saurav Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28012 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Samastipur ====================================================== GOLU KUMAR @ SAURAV KUMAR Son of Raghunath Jha @ Bandhu Jha Resident of Village - Kalyanpur Milki, P.S.- Bibhutipur, District - Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjit Kumar Thakur For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 16-12-2021 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Women Police Station Case No. 24 of 2020, disclosing offences under Sections 376(D)(a), 313 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 18 of POCSO Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed rape along with other co-accused persons upon the informant aged about 15 years. He allured her for marriage and on several occasions, he committed rape upon the victim and when she became pregnant, the petitioner administered

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28012 of 2020(12) dt.16-12-2021 2/3 medicine causing into abortion.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. It has further been submitted that there is delay of one and a half years in lodging of the present case. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that the petitioner after alluring the minor victim for marriage subjected her under sexual relation for a long duration and he also caused terminated her pregnancy by administering medicines. He has also submitted that the witnesses in paragraph No.4 and 5 have fully supported the prosecution case and the victim herself in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has narrated the entire occurrence with allegation that the petitioner has committed rape upon her on the pretext of marriage.

The reason for delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained in the FIR itself which shows that the victim and his family members were taking efforts for marriage of the informant with the petitioner but ultimately the petitioner refused to marry with the informant.

Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28012 of 2020(12) dt.16-12-2021 3/3 petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is dismissed.

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