Raju Ansari @ Rajik Ansari @ Rajik Ans. v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40954 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -23 Year- 2017 Thana -Mahila P.S. District- Purnia ======================================================

1. Raju Ansari @ Rajik Ansari @ Rajik Ans. S/o Meraj Ansari @ Miraj Ansari, R/o Vill.- Piperpanti, P.S.- Jalalgarh, District- Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Md. Nurul Hoda, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P. For the informant : Mr. Kumar Manglam, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 23 of 2017 registered for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is of committing rape upon the informant on the pretext of marriage. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after medical examination of the victim girl, her age has been found to be in between 19 to 20 years and she appears to be consenting party and the entire allegations against the petitioner is false and concocted. It is also submitted that the petitioner had no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 07.05.2018.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40954 of 2018 (3) dt.24-09-2018 2/2 Heard learned A.P.P as well as learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Purnia in connection with Mahila P.S.Case No. 23 of 2017 subject to the following conditions:- i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. ii) The petitioner will not induce any witness or tamper with the evidence.

iii) It is made clear that if petitioner found involved in any of the like offences, in future, prosecution is free to move for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sudha/- U T