Vicky Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48274 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna ====================================================== VICKY KUMAR Son of Sanjit Singh @ Sanjit Kumar Singh Resident of Village - Daulatpur, Post Gandhi Tola Daulatpur, P.S.- Gaurichak, DistrictPatna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Kumar Uday Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP For the informant :

Mr. Daya Nand singh, Advocate Mr. Nagadeo Choudhary, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. case No.9 of 2019 registered under Sections 376, 420, 468, 420, 471, 379, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna. Allegation is that the petitioner committed rape with the victim and prepared a video and threatened her not to disclose anyone.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48274 of 2019(3) dt.16-11-2019 2/2 present case. There is no photograph on record to show that the petitioner had tried to blackmail the informant. The informant is the sole witness. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 2017. The case was instituted in the year 2019. Delay has not been disclosed by the prosecution.

On behalf of the State and learned counsel for the informant, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. The victim has been examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The husband of the victim had also instituted a case in the year 2018 against the petitioner and the informant. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders before the court below and prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- U T