Patna High CourtCR. MISC./79809/2023dismissed

Kaijum Mansoori @ Kaijub Mansoori v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-10Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79809 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2021 Thana- BELA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Kaijum Mansoori @ Kaijub Mansoori Son Of Amar Ali Mansoori Resident Of Village - Nargan, Metpur, Ps- Bela, Distt- Sitamrhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Hans Lal Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 10-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Petitioner is said to have committed rape with the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner and the allegation levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the petitioner is implicated in this case because the brother of the petitioner earlier lodged FIR of Bela P.S. Case No. 159 of 2021 against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79809 of 2023(4) dt.10-04-2024 2/2 family member of the informant. He further submits that petitioner has one criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application and he is languishing in judicial custody since 25.09.2023.

5. Learned APP for the State and informant opposing the prayer for bail submit that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., has supported the prosecution case.

6. Considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected in connection with Bela P.S. Case No. 180 of 2021.

7. However, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T