Kumar Sushant v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2698 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2020 Thana- RAMPUR District- Gaya ====================================================== KUMAR SUSHANT SON OF ARUN KUMAR SINGH@ MUNNA SINGH RESIDENT OF MOH-A.P.COLONY,HOUSE NO.171,P.S-RAMPUR, DIST.- GAYA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

KOMAL KUMARI @ PRABHAWATI @ KHUSBOO D/O LATE SATENDRA SINGH RESIDENT OF VILL-DUMRAON,P.SPAKRIBARAMA, DIST-NAWADA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kumar Rajeev For the State :

Mr.Mustaque Alam For the Informant : Mr. Avinash Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 29-10-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Rampur P.S. Case No.115 of 2020 registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The victim-informant is a married lady. It is clear from the F.I.R. that the informant has not mentioned the date and time of the alleged occurrence. The petitioner has got one criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2698 of 2021(2) dt.29-10-2021 2/2 Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner repeatedly exploited the victim sexually on the assurance of marriage. When the victim came to know about ring ceremony with another girl and the petitioner, she protested. On protest, the petitioner and his other family members assaulted her and drove her out from the house and threatened her to kill. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Harish/- U T