Murari Kumar @ Murari Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72817 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2015 Thana- MAHILA THANA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Murari Kumar @ Murari Kumar Gupta, S/o Motilal Sah, Resident of villagePurani Bazar Kalisthan, P.S. Teghra, District- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar.

2. Kumari Rajshree, daughter of Jai Prakash Sah, resident of villageBrahmapur, P.S. Mansoorchak, District-Begusarai. ... ... Opposite Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.

For the State :

Mr.

For the Informant/opposite party no.2: Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 12-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.2 of 2015 registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation is that the petitioner developed physical relation with the informant/opposite party no.2 since last two years on assurance to perform the marriage. Thereafter, the petitioner and the informant/opposite party no.2 used to meet at different places and the petitioner also took the money from the informant/opposite party no.2. Later on, the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72817 of 2018(4) dt.12-03-2019 2/3 put the mobile number of the informant/opposite party no.2 in block list. Due to that reason, the informant/opposite party no.2 could not contact with the petitioner but she came to know from relative that the petitioner has settled his marriage with one Priti Kumari. As such, the petitioner made physical relation with the informant/opposite party no.2 on assurance of performing the marriage but, later on, refused to perform the marriage and cheated the informant/opposite party no.2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the informant/opposite party no.2 is already married but only to put pressure upon the petitioner to perform remarriage with her, the informant/opposite party no.2 lodged the present case. In course of investigation, it has come in the statement of Jai Prakash Sah, who is the father of the informant/opposite party no.2, that the informant/opposite party no.2 is already married and when she came in the touch of the petitioner, asked him to perform the marriage, while he forbade her.

Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender by him within six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72817 of 2018(4) dt.12-03-2019 3/3 (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.2 of 2015, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T