Dr. Karambir Bharti @ Karmveer Bharti v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76815 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2023 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Dr. Karambir Bharti @ Karmveer Bharti Son Of Late Bisheshwar Bharti Ayurvedec Sewa Kendra, R/O Village- Afjalpur Puraina, P.S.- Patepur, Dist.- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravish Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2.The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Patepur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023 registered under Sections 376, 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is alleged that petitioner had given intoxicated medicine to the informant in the clinic of co-accused Dr. Arun Paswan due to which she became unconscious and then the petitioner committed rape on her and on regaining consciousness the informant was threatened by the petitioner.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner who is a renowned Ayurvedic Doctor, is completely innocent and has committed no offences whatsoever

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76815 of 2023(5) dt.09-04-2024 2/2 which have been alleged. It is further submitted that the victim girl has given her 161 Cr.P.C. statement after 15 days of the alleged occurrence.

5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of establishing physical relationship with the informant by giving her intoxicated medicine. Learned A.P.P. further contended that the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

6. Having considered the fact and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) utkarsh/- U T