Sudeep Kumar@Bittu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40672 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2020 Thana- ROSHANGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== SUDEEP KUMAR@ BITTU SON OF AJAY PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- JAMUARA KALA, P.S.- RAUSHANGANJ, DISTRICT- GAYA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-04-2021 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Raushanganj (Bankebazar) P.S. Case No. 99 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 366 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, this petitioner is alleged to have abducted the informant on the point of gun and committed rape with her.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40672 of 2020(3) dt.08-04-2021 2/2 informant is major lady. In fact, there is love affair between the petitioner and the informant and only with a view to blackmail this false case has been lodged. Relationship was established with the consent of the informant. Petitioner is in custody since 07.09.2020 having no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific allegation against this petitioner of kidnapping the informant and committing rape with her. The aforesaid fact has also been supported by the victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Doctor in the medical report has not ruled out the commission of rape.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T