Patna High CourtCR. MISC./35501/2016rejected

Bholtu Kuraishi @ Dilsad Alam v. The State Of Bihar

2016-09-20Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35501 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -26 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA PS District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Bholtu Kuraishi @ Dilsad Alam Son of Saim Khuraishi Resident of Village- Khap, P.S Cherki, Dist Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivendra Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Saran Singh,APP Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 20-09-2016 Heard the Counsel for the petitioner, the informant and the State.

Petitioner, amongst others, is named accused in Mahila P.S. Case No. 26 of 2016 registered under sections 376, 323, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecutrix has alleged that while she was sleeping in the courtyard, the petitioner tiptoed into the house and forcibly captivated her and took to the nearby place and committed rape on her. She got herself released and came to the house whereafter the F.I.R. was lodged.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present petitioner also lodged a case of assault against the present prosecution side in which he has disclosed his age as 15 years. The injury report does not support the prosecution case. The case has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35501 of 2016 (2) dt.20-09-2016 2/2 been lodged with a view to pressurize him to marry the victim. Counsel for the informant as well as the State opposed the prayer and submitted that in course of investigation, the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The victim was produced for her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has fully supported the prosecution case.

Considering the allegation levelled against the petitioner and the materials reflected from the record including the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner, in my view, does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. Prayer is, accordingly, rejected.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U T