Prabhakar @ Karu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.48323 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -167 Year- 2013 Thana -DEEPNAGAR DistrictNALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Prabhakar @ Karu S/o Alakhdeo Prasad Resident of Village Atnama, P.S. Barh, District Patna.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv. For the Informant : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Dr. Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER 13-03-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 493, 376/34 of IPC. Allegation against the petitioner is to have outraged the modesty of the complainant/informant aged about 13 years on the allurement of marriage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case to put pressure to marry the prosecutrix. The complaint case has been filed also against Amrendra and Sangeeta, who are relatives of the petitioner. The doctor has not found any sign of rape and the age
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48323 of 2014 (3) dt.13-03-2015 2/2 of the prosecutrix has been estimated to 16 to 17 years. Learned counsel for other side has submitted that there is specific allegation of overtact against the petitioner. The medical examination of the victim has been held on 3.8.2013, whereas, the date of occurrence is 19.5.2013. The statement of the victim has also been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which the learned Magistrate has estimated her age 15 years. After investigation the case has been found true and the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve bail at this stage. His prayer for bail is rejected.
Let the trial be expedited.
(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) Kanchan/- U T