Manish Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69409 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2022 Thana- SUPPI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== MANISH KUMAR YADAV Son of Ram Viriksh Ray R/V- Motipur, P.SSuppi, Dist- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhishek Kumar For the Opposite Party/ :

Mr.Murli Dhar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 03-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the informant.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Suppi P.S. Case No. 13 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 385, 386, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 67 of the I.T. Act.

The allegation against the petitioner is that in the night of occurrence he entered into the house of the victim, committed rape upon her at the point of pistol and he also made videograph. After showing the video clip, he blackmailed the victim and demanded rupees three lakhs. He also committed rape several times. He threatened her to tarnish her reputation in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69409 of 2022(5) dt.03-05-2023 2/3 the society if she refused to have physical relation with her. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has submitted further that the husband of the informant namely Vinod Rai was engaged in the business of illegal trading of liquor and the petitioner informed the police about his illegal act and it is the reason that at his instance, his wife has falsely implicated him in a false case. The learned counsel has further submitted that the informant has taken Rs. 10,000/- from the petitioner with assurance to return that but she did not return and when he demanded the money, she threatened him to teach a lesson.

The learned APP as well as the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that the statement of the victim has been recorded in paragraph No. 103 of the case diary in that she has fully corroborated her earlier version made in the FIR and stated that after committing rape, the petitioner blackmailed her and she has also stated that the petitioner made the videograph viral on the social media platform. The petitioner has also falsely implicated husband of the victim in two cases under Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69409 of 2022(5) dt.03-05-2023 3/3 Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, I do not think it to be a proper case for grant of bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T