Patna High CourtCR. MISC./33037/2023dismissed

Ajay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-07-21Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33037 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-240 Year-2022 Thana- RUPAULI District- Purnia ====================================================== Ajay Kumar Son Of Sri Sohan Singh R/O Village- Sadhwa Basa, Gwalpara, P.S.-Rupauli, District-Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 21-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Rupauli P.S. Case No. 240 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 34, 506 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Purnea.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused Vibhash Kumar Singh entered into the house of the informant and forcibly established physical relation with her and also threatened her that they will kill her and her husband.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33037 of 2023(2) dt.21-07-2023 2/2 the petitioner and the informant are neighbour and the informant side was cutting boundary and the petitioner raised protest for that, due to this reason the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the victim in her statement u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T