Suman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72351 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2024 Thana- PIPRA District- Supaul ====================================================== Suman Kumar S/o Satyanarayan Mandal R/o Village- Lalpatti (ward no.2), P.S.- Pipra, District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mrs. Suman Kumari Singh, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Amar Nath Yadav, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 21-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in Pipra P.S. Case No. 92 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, on the pretext of marriage the petitioner committed rape upon the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72351 of 2024(4) dt.21-11-2024 2/2 statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it transpires that there was love affair between the parties. It is further submitted that there is delay of four days in lodging the FIR. The petitioner is in custody since 14.06.2024 and has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has supported her case against the petitioner of committing rape over her. It is further submitted that there is specific allegation attributed against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial expeditiously.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T