Raju Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69527 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-307 Year-2021 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== RAJU ANSARI Son of Kalam Ansari Resident of Village- Mehta Tola Chowk, P.S.- Harsidhi, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Harsidhi P.S. case No.307/2021 registered under Sections 363, 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran. Prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner made obscene video of the victim and the petitioner forced the victim to have physical relation with another.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69527 of 2021(2) dt.04-04-2022 2/2 allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The victim has been recovered. Her statement has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As per her statement, the petitioner had established physical relationship on the pretext of marriage.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. From perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is evident that the petitioner insisted the victim to establish physical relationship with another person, namely, Jahid Ansari. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders before the court below and prays for regular bail, same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- U T