Ravi Ravidas v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43487 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nalanda ====================================================== Ravi Ravidas Son of Bodhi Ravidas Resident of Village- Sakraudha, Police Station- Nalanda, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh For the State :

Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh For the Informant Mr. Anil Kumar No. 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 11-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he established physical relation with the informant on false assurance of marriage.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43487 of 2021(2) dt.11-04-2022 2/2 implicated in this case. He submits that informant is a major girl, hence, the petitioner has not committed any act with her forcibly. He submits that there is love affair between the petitioner and the informant. He submits that the Medical Board has assessed the age of the victim to be 18-19 years. He further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application.

Learned APP for the State and informant oppose the prayer for bail and submit that the victim in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement has supported the prosecution case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 122 of 2020. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T