Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40877 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2022 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== RANJAN KUMAR Son of Binod Mahto R/O Vill.- Kanahauli, P.S. - Mithanpura, Dist.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajeev Ranjan No.II :

Mrs. Priyanka Kumari, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 04-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Karja P.S. Case No. 104 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is of abduction of victim/wife of the informant and made physical relation with her forcibly.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has been transpired in this case during course of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40877 of 2022(3) dt.04-01-2023 2/2 investigation. Petitioner is in custody since 3.5.2022. Learned APP appearing for the state has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail and submitted that according to the statement of victim recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. corroborates the prosecution story and this fact shows that the petitioner has made sexual relation with her several times after threatened her.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his application for bail stands rejected.

The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of one year. However, if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within a period of one year, he would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) amandeep/- U T