← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28394/2020bail rejected

Sumit Verma v. The State Of Bihar

2021-01-08Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28394 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2020 Thana- KAUWAKOL District- Nawada ====================================================== SUMIT VERMA Son of Sadanand Prasad @ Sadanand Prasad @ Sadanand Verma Resident of Village- Durgamandap, Kawakol, P.S.- Kawakole, DistrictNawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sameer Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Kawakole P.S. Case No. 44 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 386, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, petitioner is alleged to have committed rape with the informant and continued to have physical relation with her and also demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- from the informant.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. In fact, there is love affair between the petitioner and informant. When the petitioner refuse to marry the informant, she lodged this false

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28394 of 2020(3) dt.08-01-2021 2/2 case against him. Petitioner is in custody since 09.02.2020 having no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition. Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim girl in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C has made specific allegation of sexual assault against the petitioner and the victim is minor. Considering the facts aforesaid and statement of victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T