Md. Sultan @ Sultan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9066 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -148 Year- 2016 Thana -SIDHWARA District- DARBHANGA ====================================================== Md. Sultan @ Sultan, S/o Harron Raseed @ Md. Haroon, resident of Village- Sahanpur, Bujurg, P.S. Singhwara, District- Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dharmendra Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Parmanand Kumar (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 29-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case No.148 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 376, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the petitioner developed intimacy with the informant and one day he brought her at Darbhanga and got acquainted with her parents, again he brought at Darbhanga and after bringing her in a lonely place of at Government Madarsa, forcibly committed rape with her and when the informant told him to narrate this incident to her maternal uncle and aunti then he gave assurance to marry with her and on that believe he used to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9066 of 2017 (4) dt.29-03-2017 2/2 bring her at Madarsa and developed physical relationship. Again inspite of objection of the informant, the petitioner developed physical relationship and thereafter he told that he will not marry with her.

Submission is of false implication and that no offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. is made out as it was consented sex. The informant is major one, she went with the petitioner out of her own sweet will and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of pre-arrest bail by submitting that the petitioner has first committed rape forcibly and lastly also committed rape forcibly after showing fear of life and, as such, the petitioner does not deserves pre-arrest 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 bail to him and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case No. 148 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T