Akram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52164 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Araria ====================================================== 1.

Akram Son Of Baddhu Resident Of Village - Haldiya, Ward No. 08, Police Station - Simraha, District - Araria.

2.

Hefaz @ Haifaj Son of Late Mosarraf Resident of Village - Haldiya, Ward no. 08, Police Station - Simraha, District - Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Viveka Nandsingh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 30-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(D), 341, 323, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged by the informant that on promise to marry, co-accused Md. Sahjad established physical relationship with the informant. It is alleged against the petitioners that by showing intimate photographs and video of the informant and co-accused Md. Sahjad, they

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52164 of 2021(5) dt.30-08-2022 2/3 forcefully committed rape on the informant and continued for many times, as a result of which, she became pregnant and when a panchayati was held, these petitioners entered into the house of the informant and assaulted the informant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioners have no concern with the love affairs of the informant and co-accused Md. Sahjad and they have been roped in the present case since they are friends of co-accused Md. Sahjad.

In contra, learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioners that they forcefully raped the informant. The informant in her 164 Cr.P.C statement has also supported the prosecution case and submitted that these petitioners forcefully raped her. The witnesses have also supported the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52164 of 2021(5) dt.30-08-2022 3/3 prosecution version.

Considering the above-stated facts, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners stands rejected.

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