Munarika Turiya @ Mundrika Turiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50733 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-188 Year-2021 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya ====================================================== MUNARIKA TURIYA @ MUNDRIKA TURIYA Son of Arjun Turiya Resident of Village - Harakuraha, P.S. - Fatehpur, Distt. - Gaya (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Meena Devi Wife of Vindeshwar Turiya Resident of Village - Harakuraha, P.S. - Fatehpur, Distt. - Gaya (Bihar) ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Alka Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-09-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Fathepur P.S. Case No. 188 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 376(AB), and 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner along with others are alleged to have committed rape upon minor daughter of the informant. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that on bare perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that the occurrence is alleged to have been committed on 21.05.2021 whereas the instant F.I.R. has been lodged on 09.06.2021 after delay of 18 days without any explanation. He further submits that it has come during the investigation that the victim was having love

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50733 of 2023(3) dt.20-09-2023 2/2 affair with the petitioner and she herself gone with the petitioner and petitioner has not committed any wrong as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 08.04.2023.

Learned A.P.P. for the State on the other hand on the basis of material available on record and the case diary vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the statement of victim has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she categorically stated that the petitioner along with other accused persons committed rape upon her. He further submits that the date of birth of the victim is recorded as 20.09.2019 in paragraph-55 of the case diary which suggest that victim was minor at the time of occurrence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival submission of the parties and the nature of offence and allegation and also the age of the victim, who is minor at the time of occurrence, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) brajesh/- U T