Amrendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40565 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Amrendra Singh Son of Tadapu Singh Resident of Village- Karhiyan, P.S.- Gambar, District- Gajipur, (U.P.) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. P.K.Shahi, Sr.Adv.

Mr.Vipin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Ajeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner seeks bail in Bhojpur Mahila P.S. Case No. 99 of 2020, registered for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

As per the F.I.R., on the pretext of marriage, the petitioner established physical relation with the informant and later on, demand of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty lacs) and one 4wheeler was made for solemnizing marriage. Petitioner denies the prosecution case and submits that no such occurrence, as alleged in the F.I.R., has taken place. As a matter of fact, on 18.10.2020, the informant called the petitioner and asked for some help, as she was unknown to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40565 of 2021(2) dt.03-01-2022 2/3 Delhi and since she was familiar, the petitioner received her from Delhi Station and arranged her accommodation. It is further submitted that only family members of informant have supported the prosecution case, however; witness Upendra Singh (brother-in-law of informant) and one Dhanjay Singh have stated on oath that they have not given any statement before the police. It is submitted that the alleged occurrence has taken place in Delhi on 18.10.2020, but the F.I.R. has been lodged in Ara (Bihar) on 20.10.2020 without any plausible explanation of either jurisdiction or delay and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is contrary to the prosecution case. The victim is major and aged about 26 years. Petitioner is in custody since 18.03.2021.

However, learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail petition and submitted that victim, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has supported the prosecution case.

Considering the materials available on record and period of custody, the bail petition of petitioner is allowed. Let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40565 of 2021(2) dt.03-01-2022 3/3 Sessions Judge - XIII, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Bhojpur Mahila P.S. Case No. 99 of 2020.

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