Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29259/2020dismissed

Vivek Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2020-12-09Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29259 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-285 Year-2019 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran ====================================================== VIVEK KUMAR Son of Kamal Kishore Choudhary Resident of VillageTarharwa, P.S.- Shikarpur, District- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bisheshwar Ram, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-12-2020 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 285 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 313, 120(B), 323, 504, 506, 376 and 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution case in brief is that this petitioner is alleged to have abducted the informant and took her to Delhi for the purpose of marriage and also established physical relation with her resulting into her pregnancy. Thereafter, petitioner forcibly committed miscarriage and refused to marry her.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29259 of 2020(2) dt.09-12-2020 2/2 It is submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner is next door neighbour and there is relation of Dewar and Bhabhi between the petitioner and informant. Informant is major aged about 27 years old. Medical test has also not been conducted, so no case under Section 376 IPC is made out against this petitioner. Petitioner has got clean antecedent, as stated in para 3 of the petition. However, counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific allegation of abducting and establishing physical relation on the promise of marriage against this petitioner.

Considering the facts aforesaid and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail at this stage. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T