Anil Gond @ Anil Kumar Gond v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66923 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-155 Year-2022 Thana- DURAULI District- Siwan ====================================================== Anil Gond @ Anil Kumar Gond, S/o Arjun Gond, Resident of Village- Daralli Mathiya (Pakadi Par), P.S.- Dralli Mathia, District- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 25-04-2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. The accused/petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and apprehends his arrest in connection with Daruli P.S. Case No. 155 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against petitioner is to commit rape upon informant on false pretext of marriage.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the present FIR was lodged after eight months of alleged occurrence which in itself sufficient to suggest that im-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66923 of 2022(2) dt.25-04-2023 2/2 plication is the result of an after thought just to counter the matrimonial litigation pending between the sister of the informant and brother of petitioner. It is also pointed out that statement of victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded after one month of the occurrence. It is further submitted that as marriage of petitioner with informant could not negotiated due to certain family reason/compulsions, present false implication was raised. It is also submitted that no medical report is available on record in support of allegation as raised to cause miscarriage. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.

Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that allegation of rape and causing miscarriage is specific against this petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as allegation of rape and miscarriage against this petitioner appears specific, the prayer of anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected herewith. (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) veena/- U T