Pragya Raj @ Vicky Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.61440 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2017 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nalanda ====================================================== Pragya Raj @ Vicky Kumar, Son of Binod Prasad @ Vinod @ Bindu Prasad, Resident of Village- Keshochak, P.S.- Chiksaura, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mrs. Babita Kumari, Advocate Mr. Ishtiaque Ahmad, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Binod Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Ram Ishwar Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-10-2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional P.P. for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. The petitioner seeks bail in Mahila P.S. Case No.162 of 2017, registered under Sections 376/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that after 2010 she came in contact with a teacher, namely, Pragya Raj @ Vicky, a teacher of Brilliant Public School, Chaiksaura and she fell in love with the petitioner. She further narrated the entire story that how the petitioner continued to have physical relation with the informant on assurance of solemnizing marriage but later on the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.61440 of 2018(2) dt.06-10-2018 2/3 refused to marry with the informant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim herself disclosed in her statement that she is 22 years old. She has been in touch with the petitioner and voluntarily allowed the petitioner to have sexual relation. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the witnesses have said that the informant left her house and went to somewhere else. No offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code can be made out as the informant happens to be major and a consenting party. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant and the learned Additional P.P. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific allegation that the petitioner continued to have physical relation with the prosecutrix for last eight years.

From the perusal of the record, it appears that the prosecutrix is a major girl and she herself stated that she also fell in love with the petitioner. The petitioner established physical relation with the victim out of her free will and wishes. The informant did not disclose any facts showing that the petitioner established physical relation against her will.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.61440 of 2018(2) dt.06-10-2018 3/3 of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.162 of 2017.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T