Anita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5656 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2753 Year-2004 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSaran ====================================================== Satyendra Kumar @ Satemdra Kumar Son Of Late Ram Balak Paswan Resident Of Village - Raja Bazar Daulatpur South, P.S. - Jehanabad, District - Jehanabad. The Then Sho, Masrakh Police Station, Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Nirmala Devi Wife Of Ram Janam Singh Resident Of Village - Masrakh, P.O. And P.S. - Masrakh, District - Saran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Anurag Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-02-2024 Heard both parties.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No. 2753 of 2004 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 284 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 12.11.2004 at 12 'O' Clock of noon, this petitioner called the complainant and thereafter, under the influence of alcohol established physical relation with her.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner is a government employee and claims clean antecedent.

5. There is allegation against this petitioner that he

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5656 of 2024(2) dt.17-02-2024 2/2 sexually assaulted the complainant on 12.11.2004 at about 12 'O' clock of noon. Complainant has supported allegation against accused petitioner in her solemn affirmation. Inquiry witnesses nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have also supported allegation against accused petitioner. Summoning order against accused petitioner has been passed by the court below on 08.05.2007, but the petitioner did not appear after cognizance and the case was committed to the learned court of Sessions on 23.11.2020, but petitioner remained absent through out for the last 20 years.

6. Considering the accusation and the fact that petitioner has moved before this court for anticipatory bail after lapse of twenty years, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

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