Niraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44067 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2021 Thana- BAHERI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== NIRAJ KUMAR Son of Ram Kumar Yadav Resident of Village - and P.o.- Baskath, P.S.- Baheri, Dist.- Darbhanga, Pin - 847201 (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shri Prakash Srivastava, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 29-06-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the informant and learned additional P.P for the state.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Baheri P.S. Case No. 56 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act. As per FIR, the prosecutrix is a girl of 16 years. She made allegation against the petitioner that at the pretext of marriage, he continuously made sexual relation with her for two years. On 2nd March, 2021, also the petitioner committed rape upon the prosecutrix. There is also the allegation against the petitioner that he forcibly terminated the pregnancy of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44067 of 2021(4) dt.29-06-2022 2/2 prosecutrix.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case has been filed only with intention to extort money from the petitioner.

On the other hand, the learned APP and the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail. Impugned order shows itself that the victim in her statement under Section 161 as well as Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has reiterated her earlier version in the FIR. She is a minor girl. The case has been registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act and the witnesses in paragraph Nos. 5, 9, 60, 85, 88, 134 and 135 of the case diary have fully supported the occurence. I do not think it to be fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/ADITI U T