Rishi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52570 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2021 Thana- BIKRAMGANJ District- Rohtas ====================================================== RISHI KUMAR Son of Lal Mohar Singh @ Lal Mohan Singh Resident of Village- Dhangai, P.S.- Bikramganj, District- Rohtas (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rang Nath Choubey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 18-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 67 and 67A of the I.T. Act. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is said to have established physical relations with the informant, to have made a video of the occurrence and continued to threaten the informant of making the same viral. It is further stated that the petitioner continued to blackmail the informant to force her to establish physical relations.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There is a delay of more than two years in lodging of the F.I.R. The alleged video has not been brought to the notice of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52570 of 2021(5) dt.18-04-2022 2/2 Investigating Officer. The medical report does not support the allegations. The witnesses whose statements have been recorded in paragraph nos.42, 43 and 44 of the case diary have supported about the love affair between the parties. The petitioner is in custody since 27.2.2021.

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State who submits that the allegation against the petitioner has been supported by the informant in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R. together with the statement of the informant under section 164 Cr.P.C., the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months or after framing of charge, whichever is later.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T