Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34989/2016rejected

Bikaram Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2016-09-27Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34989 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -164 Year- 2016 Thana -SONEPUR District- SARAN ======================================================

1. Bikaram Kumar Singh Son of Anup Kumar Singh Resident of VillageBaijalpur, Police Station Sonpur, District Saran,. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 27-09-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sonpur P.S. Case No. 164 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 511, 385, 324 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant, father of the victim, made allegation that on 13.04.2016 when his daughter went to attend the call of nature, the petitioner eve-teased her and on protest he cut her hand with knife. There was profuse bleeding. The victim was treated by Dr. Shailendra Kumar and thereafter she remained in her Nanihal but the petitioner reached in her Nanihal and threatened her of dire consequences.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34989 of 2016 (3) dt.27-09-2016 2/2 occurrence took place on 13.04.2016 but the FIR was lodged on 28.04.2016. None of the independence witnesses have supported the case of the petitioner.

From perusal of record it transpires that the victim supported her case. Mother and father of the victim and other witnesses also stated that the petitioner made attempt to outrage her modesty and on protest he cut her hand. The doctor also found incised wound on the right wrist of the victim. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi U T