Margub Alam @ Md Margub v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54372 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Araria ====================================================== MARGUB ALAM @ MD MARGUB S/o Md. Sarfuddin @ Shafuddin Resident of Village- Kakorana Basti, Ward No.29, P.S. and District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gopal Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rana Randhir Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-02-2023 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 13 of 2022 registered for offence punishable under sections 376, 341, 323, 307, 313, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, the victim, who is a parentless girl, was staying on rent in a tenanted house of the father of the petitioner. The petitioner committed rape upon her. The parents of the petitioner assured that they would solemnize the marriage of their son (petitioner) with the victim, but even after passing several months, they did not stand to their words. A Panchayati

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54372 of 2022(2) dt.01-02-2023 2/2 was convened on 02.03.2022, in which, the Punches asked the petitioner to marry to the informant, but in Panchayati, he badly assaulted her, resulting into bleeding from her private part. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the date of rape has not been mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner is a person of clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in this case.

There is specific allegation that the petitioner committed rape upon the victim and he retracted from his promise to marry to her when the Panchayati was convened. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T