Patna High CourtCR. MISC./83824/2023dismissed

Md. Ijhar Alam v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-07Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83824 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-268 Year-2023 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Md. Ijhar Alam Son of Md. Mujib Resident of Village - Jorganj Ekraha, Ward No. 10, Police Station- Jankinagar, District- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kishore Bharti For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narsingh Tanti ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 07-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Raniganj P.S. Case No. 268 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 452 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation, while the informant was sleeping alone in the house and the door was opened, the petitioner entered into and committed rape upon her on the point of pistol.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has submitted further that the petitioner has been made accused on mere suspicion. There is no direct evidence against him. He has also submitted that there was love affairs between the victim and the petitioner. The petitioner is a person of clean antecedent.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the statement of the witnesses at

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83824 of 2023(3) dt.07-03-2024 2/2 Paragraph nos. 11, 12, 13 of the case diary have corroborated the statement as made by the informant in the FIR. It has further been submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, has supported the allegation as made in the FIR.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts, and circumstances, I do not think it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner stands rejected.

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