Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7697/2017rejected

Raj Kumar Uraon @ Raj Kumar Toppo v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-27Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7697 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -56 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- PURNIA ====================================================== Raj Kumar Uraon @ Raj Kumar Toppo, son of Kusumlal Uraon, resident of Village- Rahuani Tola, Purnea City, P.S. Sadar, District- Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikramdeo Singh Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : . Smt. Asha Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 27-03-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State.

In this application for anticipatory bail the petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 56 of 2016 for the offences punishable under sections 376, 420 and 34 of the I.P.C.

Allegedly, the petitioner for providing job to the informant took Rs. 11,000/- in his account and the amount was deposited by the informant but no job was provided and accordingly the petitioner after giving assurance to marry with her started committing rape with her resulting the informant became pregnant and thereafter the petitioner and his family members refused to marry with her and told the informant to take Rs.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7697 of 2017 (3) dt.27-03-2017 2/2 2,00,000/- to abort and to marry her at another place. Submission is of false implication and that the informant is aged 19 years and as such she is an adult, no offence under section 376 of the I.P.C is made out as it was the consented sex, first part of the allegation appears also false and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. The learned A.P.P. opposes prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner by submitting that during investigation the witnesses have supported the allegation.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with the aforementioned case pending in the court of S.D.J.M. Purnea.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T