Anket Choudhary @ Aniket Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8025 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -61 Year- 2016 Thana -NIYAMCHANDPUR District- BEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. Anket Choudhary @ Aniket Choudhary, S/o Ashok Choudhary, R/o village - Amaur, P.S. Neema Chandpura, District - Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahtash Ali Khan (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 16-03-2017 Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner annexing the copy of complaint petition no. 96C of 2016 lodged by Rinku Kumari and also her deposition during inquiry. Let it be kept on record.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chandpura P.S. Case No. 61 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 376, 313, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the petitioner finding the informant alone in her house on 02.05.2013 forcibly developed physical relationship with her and when she opposed, the petitioner assured to marry with her, resulting, time to time the petitioner used to develop physical relationship with her resulting, she became pregnant, she was aborted forcibly but when the petitioner refused

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8025 of 2017 (3) dt.16-03-2017 2/2 to marry with her then she lodged this case Submission is of false implication and that with similar allegation complaint case has also been field wherein after inquiry cognizance has been taken under Sections 420 and 323 of the I.P.C. only as the complainant has admitted during crossexamination that it was consensual sex and both are major. F.I.R has been lodged after much delay of three years and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. The learned A.P.P. submits that the informant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the allegation of rape and, as such, the petitioner does not deserve prearrest bail. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest to him and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Neema Chandpura P.S. Case No. 61 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Begusarai.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T