Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15/2016rejected

Jagar Nath Yadav @ Jag Nath Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2016-02-25Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15 of 2016 (3) dt.25-02-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -342 Year- 2015 Thana -BAGHA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Jagar Nath Yadav @ Jag Nath Yadav Son of Nohar Yadav Resident of Village-Mangalpur, P.s Bagaha(Patkhauli ) District West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prithvi Nath Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. C.Sen Pd.Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bagaha(Patkhauli) P.S. Case No. 342 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 313, 376, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the petitioner after making promise to marry with the informant started developing sexual relationship with her for last 3 years and when the informant became pregnant then her pregnancy was terminated with the help of other coaccused and they refused for marriage. Again on 10.8.2015 in the night the petitioner developed physical relationship with the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15 of 2016 (3) dt.25-02-2016 informant and again refused to marry with her. Submission is of false implication and that there is no independent witness to support the prosecution version, medical evidence also does not support the recent sign of sexual assault and age of the victim has been assessed as 20 years. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner has ruined the life of the informant and she in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has supported the prosecution version.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, at this stage I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his prayer stands rejected.

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