Md. Guddu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37104 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2020 Thana- KADWA District- Katihar ====================================================== Md. Guddu Son Of Jahid R/O Village- Kawaiya Bishanpur, P.S.- Kadwa, District- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md. Hussain, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP For the Informant : Najeeb Ahmed, Adv. With Thakur Brajesh Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 22-09-2022 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Kadwa P.S. Case No. 137 of 2020 lodged under Sections 341, 323, 376, 504, 506/34 of the I.P.C.

As per the prosecution case, there is an allegation of rape against the present petitioner in the name of marriage. There are in total 7 persons have been made accused in this case including the present petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the reading of the F.I.R. it transpires that the entire F.I.R. is wrong and false with a view to create unnecessary pressure upon family members of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37104 of 2022(2) dt.22-09-2022 2/2 petitioner submits that in this case the entire family members have been made accused. The allegation of rape is only against the petitioner. It is clear that with a view to create pressure, the present case has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2022 having clean antecedent, charge sheet has already been filed. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the name of marriage, the petitioner had developed physical relation with the informant since last 3 years and was not ready for marriage even after Panchayati, then the present case has been filed after lapse of 3 years.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail at present but Trial Court is directed to release him on bail after framing of charge in this case putting condition that he may not evade from trial.

With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) prakashmani/- U T