Arjun Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43031 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

Arjun Singh Son Of Late Shyam Bihari Singh R/O Village- Banjari, P.S.- Rohtas, District- Rohtas (BIHAR) 2.

Manju Devi Wife Of Arjun Singh R/O Village- Banjari, P.S.- Rohtas, District- Rohtas (BIHAR) ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Birendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the Office, within a period of four weeks.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered under Sections 341, 323, 376, 496, 494, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9, 10 and 11 of Child Marriage Act.

The prosecution allegation, in short, is that on the pretext of marriage, the son of the petitioners committed rape on the victim and later refused.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43031 of 2021(2) dt.04-04-2022 2/3 It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. The son of petitioners is alleged to have established physical relationship with the victim on the assurance of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said relationship was a consensual relation between the parties. He has placed reliance on cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court since reported in 2019 SCC Online SC3100 (Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar versus The State of Maharastra & Ors) and (2019) 9 SCC 608 (Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.). On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J.-VIcum- Special Judge, POCSO, Rohtas in connection with Mahila

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43031 of 2021(2) dt.04-04-2022 3/3 P.S. Case No. 39/2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/- U T