Patna High CourtCR. MISC./70776/2023bail rejected

Mohammad Hazrat v. The State Of Bihar

2023-11-09Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70776 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Araria ====================================================== Mohammad Hazrat Son Of Mohammad Sabir Resident Of Village- Takiya, Ward No. 07, PS- Kursakanta, Dist- Araria, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Diksha Kumari, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Rita Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 09-11-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Araria Mahila P.S. Case No. 50 of 2022, lodged on 03.09.2022, under Sections under Sections 341/323/379/376/504/506/34 of the I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and other five named accused persons stating that the petitioner has developed physical relation with the informant in the name of marriage, but subsequently on the intervention of the family members he refused to marry and family members also assaulted her. Thereafter, panchayati took place but

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70776 of 2023(2) dt.09-11-2023 2/2 nothing happened. In the result, the informant filed this case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the antecedent of the petitioner is clean. He is in custody since 14.07.2023. Counsel submits that from the contents of the FIR it is very much clear that the informant is major and she has developed physical relation with the petitioner with a due consent, but subsequently case has been filed with ulterior motive.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner has annexed copy of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has categorically alleged the content of the FIR and supported the case.

6. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U T