Shrawan Yadav @ Shravan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1818 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2023 Thana- ADHAOURA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Shrawan Yadav @ Shravan Kumar Son of Jagarnath Yadav R/o vill - Beduri, P.S. - Adhoura, Distt. - Kaimur at Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 31-01-2024 Heard Mr.Tribhuwan Narayan,learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Surendra Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Adhoura P.S.Case No.45 of 2023, FIR dated 18.08.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the petitioner told the informant to marry with her and established physical relationship with her. It is alleged that the petitioner took rupees 2,00,000/- (two lakhs) from the informant and denied to marry with her. When the informant went to ask from the other FIR named accused persons in this case they

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1818 of 2024(2) dt.31-01-2024 2/3 stated that they do not know anything about this.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. Further submits that from a bare perusal of the complaint petition it appears that the present complaint case has been lodged on 21.07.2023 in which they alleged that the alleged occurrence took place between 15.03.2023 and 20.07.2023. Further submits that from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that the allegation against the petitioner is that he committed rape upon the victim. Further submits that the present FIR has been instituted only to harass the petitioner.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has categorically supported the case of the prosecution.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Adhoura P.S.Case No.45 of 2023 pending in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Kaimur at

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1818 of 2024(2) dt.31-01-2024 3/3 Bhabhua.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T