Shashi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29243 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-267 Year-2020 Thana- BIHIA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== SHASHI KUMAR Son of Krishna Singh Resident of Village - Itahi Tola Hirdepur, P.s.- behiya, Distt.- Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gopal Govind Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 09-01-2023 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Behiya P.S. Case No. 267 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 504, 323 and 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecutrix is a girl of 19 years of age. As per allegation, she used to go to her maternal house, where she came into contact with the petitioner, who had physical relation with her at the pretext of marriage. The petitioner brought her in a temple of Mahthin Mai for marriage, but his family members named in the FIR came there. The brother of the petitioner abused the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29243 of 2022(3) dt.09-01-2023 2/2 informant in filthy words and the accused persons, including the petitioner denied to have marital relation with the informant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not ready to marry with the informant, since she is a girl of loose moral.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the petitioner at the pretext of marriage exploited the informant sexually. She reiterated her version in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the impugned order shows that the witnesses nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 have corroborated the allegation.

In my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/Kundan U T