Munna Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9628 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2020 Thana- PIYAR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Munna Kumar Son Of Suresh Sahni Resident Of Village Bargaon, P.S- Piar, Dist- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shankar Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.B.N. Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-09-2021 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in Piar P.S. Case No. 121 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 323 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, allegation against this petitioner is that petitioner sexually exploited the informant on the false pretext of marriage and later on, refused to marry. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. During course of investigation, mother of the informant has stated that informant has already married with one Ranjeet Kumar and after marriage she is living with her husband. Few days ago, she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9628 of 2021(3) dt.01-09-2021 2/2 came in her Maika. Her son-in-law also came in marriage of her son, but in the night her son-in-law has not found the informant. In fact, father of informant has taken loan from the father of petitioner and when the informant's father could not repay the loan amount, and only because of that informant has falsely implicated this petitioner in this case. Petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2020 having no criminal antecedent. Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific allegation that petitioner sexually assaulted the informant on the false pretext of marriage.
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