Patna High CourtCR. MISC./60458/2022dismissed

Rajesh Rabidas @ Rajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-01-24Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60458 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-466 Year-2021 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui ====================================================== RAJESH RABIDAS @ RAJESH KUMAR S/O NEPALI RAVIDAS Resident of village- Baruata, P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md. Najmul Hodda, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Tapeshwar Sharma, APP For the informant :

Mr. Bharat Lal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 24-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the informant.

Let the defect(s), if any, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks.

The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No. 466 of 2021 under sections 363, 366, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that one Pratima Kumari came to his house and took his daughter on the pretext of filling form in the college. However, she failed to return. The informant enquired into the matter and came to know that the petitioner herein and some unknown persons have taken her away. Upon complaint, he was further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60458 of 2022(2) dt.24-01-2023 2/2 abused by the petitioner's family. Accordingly, the FIR. Subsequently, the girl returned and as per the observation that has come in Cr. Misc. No. 28540 of 2022 (Praveen Rabidas) the victim in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. stated that she was taken to Panipat where Rajesh Rabidas married her. Thereafter, both Rajesh Rabidas (petitioner) and Praveen Rabidas committed illegal act. This Court fails to understand the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this petitioner had married the victim girl. If that was the case, how, accused Praveen Rabidas had access to her as victim girl has alleged that both committed illegal act upon her.

Considering the kind of allegation that she has made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., this Court is not inclined to grant him the privilege of anticipatory bail which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/Ajay Singh U T