Indrajeet Prasad @ Kamlesh Kumar @ Munsi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39825 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2022 Thana- MEHANDIGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Indrajeet Prasad @ Kamlesh Kumar @ Munsi Son Of Birju Bind Resident Of Village- Ranipur Mahadev Asthan, Ps- Begampur, Distt- Patna ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr.Shambhu Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party :
Mr.Umesh Lal Verma, Addl Public Prosecutor ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 307, 379, 376/34 and other ancillary sections of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, when the informant was going for refill petrol in her two wheeler, near Rudra Tower 4/5 persons forcibly dragged her behind sand mound. They started abusing her and when she prohibited then they started beating her and pointed knife on her. They attempted to ravish her. She started crying then they closed her mouth and started beating her indiscriminately. They all forcibly harassed her. They all were intoxicated and smell of liquor was emanating from their mouth. In between this they were taking name of two persons one was Tanuj Bind and second was Munsi (petitioner). Tanuj used to sell Litti on cart (Thela) near Bypass Police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39825 of 2023(3) dt.30-04-2024 2/2 Station to whom she recognized and Munsi is residing in Hut on Bypass service lane but she did not know the name of other persons. On protest Tanuj, Munsi ( petitioner ) and others tried to strangulate her and snatched her gold chain. She requested them for sparing her but they badly injured her and leaving her in injured condition fled away.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the parties are neighbour and name of the petitioner has been dragged in this case due to malafide intention. F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate delay of nine without any explanation which renders the entire prosecution case doubtful. petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner in the FIR that he along with other accused persons tried to molest the informant.
6. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T