Vaibhav Raj @ Vivek Raj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82541 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna ====================================================== Vaibhav Raj @ Vivek Raj S/O Ramanuj Paswan R/O Village- P.O- Kako, P.SKako, Distt.- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Jyoti Kumari D/O Pawan Paswan R/O Village, P.O- Barni, P.S- Dhanarua, Distt.- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ratnakar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 11-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 71 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 351, 64, 352 of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. Allegedly, petitioner is said to have established physical relations with the informant forcefully on the pretext of marriage, but later on he went back on his word and also abused and assaulted her.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82541 of 2024(2) dt.11-12-2024 2/2 He has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. No mark of violence was found on the body of the victim (informant) in course of her medical examination. The real fact of the matter is that the present case has been filed for mounting pressure for solemnization of marriage of the informant with the petitioner. The petitioner side has also lodged a case bearing Mahila P.S. Case No. 72 of 2024 against the informant and others. Learned counsel further submits that there is no allegation of tampering with the evidence against the petitioner and he has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T