Patna High CourtCR. MISC./43645/2021rejected

Rakesh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2022-02-04Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43645 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga ====================================================== RAKESH KUMAR YADAV Son of Shiv Shankar Yadav Resident of Village - Pethiya Gachhi, P.S.- Ashok Paper Mill, District - Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vinay Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Lal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in virtual court proceeding.

Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of start of normal functioning of the physical court.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Darbhanga Mahila (A.P.M.) P.S. Case No. 53 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 34, 506 of the IPC.

As per prosecution case, the petitioner established physical relationship with the informant on the pretext of marriage.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43645 of 2021(3) dt.04-02-2022 2/2 petitioner has clean antecedent and has committed no offence and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that in fact the present case has been lodged only to pressurize the petitioner to marry with informant. Petitioner is in custody since 29.05.2021.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer of bail on the basis of material on record as well as case diary by submitting that the victim in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has supported the allegation as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that the witnesses have also supported the prosecution version.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, the same stands rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) shahzad/- U T