Krishna Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43322 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-360 Year-2022 Thana- TRIVENIGANJ District- Supaul ====================================================== Krishna Kumar Mandal ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rohit Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 04-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 360 of 2022 instituted under Sections 376, 354 (C), 354 (D), 506, 366, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and 66 (E) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he forcefully made physical relationship with the informant on the pretext of marriage and whenever the informant asked for marriage, the petitioner has evaded. On proposal for marriage, petitioner's father also demanded dowry of Rs. 15 lacs. Petitioner also not only disturbed the marriage of the informant with other person but also made the obscene
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43322 of 2023(2) dt.04-08-2023 2/2 videos viral.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that there was love-affairs between petitioner and informant but petitioner had never given any assurance to marriage with the victim and petitioner has no knowledge how obscene video was got viral. Petitioner has lodged F.I.R. against the father, brother and other relatives of the informant. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and materials available on record, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. Hence, the anticipatory bail of the present petitioner stands rejected. (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) ashutosh/- U T