Rituraj v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60228 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2024 Thana- NOKHA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Rituraj S/o Ram Suresh Singh @ Akela R/o Village- Gopalpur, PS- Nokha, Dist- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Babu Nandan Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Gulnar Begum ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 28-10-2024
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Nokha P.S. Case No. 187 of 2024 dated 19.05.2024 registered under Section 366(A) / 34 of the I.P.C.
3. As per the First Information Report the petitioner along with his two friends forcibly took away the daughter of the informant on 18.05.2024 while she had gone to attend coaching class.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is a student and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that there was love affair between the victim girl and the petitioner and both were on talking terms with each other on Instagram. He submits that though the occurrence took place on 18.05.2024 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 19.05.2024 but the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60228 of 2024(3) dt.28-10-2024 2/2 same was forwarded to the court of learned A.C.J.M.-I , Rohtas after a delay of five days on 24.05.2024.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded in which she has categorically named the petitioner and has stated that the petitioner threatened her to accompany him otherwise he would get her father killed. She has further stated that the petitioner firstly took her to Sasaram, then she was brought to Mughalsarai by train and thereafter, she was taken to Mumbai where the petitioner performed marriage with her in a temple against her wishes. Learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail has taken note of the fact that witnesses mentioned in the case diary have supported the case of the prosecution.
6. Considering the nature of allegation, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the severity of punishment, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same stands rejected. praful/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) U T