Md. Jafar Imam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61034 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-148 Year-2021 Thana- KHAJEKALA District- Patna ====================================================== MD. JAFAR IMAM Son of Late Ali Imam Resident of Mohalla- Lodi Katra, Amin Colony, P.S.- Khajekala, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kunwar Ajit Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Lal, APP Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in virtual court proceeding. Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of start of normal functioning of the physical court.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Khajekala P.S. Case No. 148 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 34 of the IPC and 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The gist of the prosecution case is that on the pretext

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61034 of 2021(2) dt.25-02-2022 2/3 of marriage the petitioner established physical relation with the informant. Later on, petitioner including the other co-accused persons demanded rupees two lacs and motorcycle during negotiation of marriage.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and has committed no offence and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that it appears from the FIR that alleged occurrence took place on 28.11.2020 and the present FIR has been instituted on 24.05.2021. He further submits that in fact, victim has already solemnized her marriage with another boy and they are living with each other as husband and wife. He further submits that petitioner is in custody since 25.05.2021. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer of bail on the ground that there is sufficient material against the petitioner. He further submits that it appears from the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she has supported the allegation as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that medical report also supports the allegation. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, the same stands rejected.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61034 of 2021(2) dt.25-02-2022 3/3 However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

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