Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39338/2020bail rejected

Vikram Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2021-03-16Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39338 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-234 Year-2016 Thana- RAJGIR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Vikram Kumar, son of Srikant Prasad, Resident of Village- Sardar Bigha, P.S.- Noorsarai, Distt.- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State Of Bihar

2. Bindeshwari Prasad, son of Late Raghu Manto, R/O Village-Hasni, P.S.- Chandi, District-Nalanda ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sudish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr Rajesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 16-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rajgir P.S. Case No.234 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif (Nalanda).

The informant has alleged that his daughter has been taken by the instant petitioner and has been assaulted by knife at a solitary place.

It is submitted by the petitioner's counsel that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. None has stated in support of the allegation during the investigation and that six

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39338 of 2020(4) dt.16-03-2021 2/2 months' later the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has, for the first time, corroborated the allegations made by her father. Further submission is that the petitioner is in custody since 07.02.2020.

Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. He has submitted that the victim's statement clearly supports the allegation of assault by knife against the petitioner (her husband).

Considering the rival submissions and the nature of allegations, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for bail, for the present. The same is rejected.

This Court would expect that the petitioner's counsel would honour his undertaking in the instant proceedings regarding supply of the requisite court fee etc. within two weeks from the date he is called upon to do so by the office. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) PNM U T