Pappu @ Prashant Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6316 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2023 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada ====================================================== Pappu @ Prashant Kumar Son of Pradeep Saw R/o vill - Beldhar, P.s. - Nawada Muffasil, Distt. - Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sadanand Paswan, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Harshit, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 16-04-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Nawada Muffasil P.S. Case no. 156 of 2023 registered under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 (i)(r)(s)(w), 4 and 12 of SC and ST (POA) Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the petitioner who used to visit her house for purpose of giving medical treatment forced himself upon her and forcibly established physical relations with her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It is a case of one sided love affair. Referring to the statement of the informant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6316 of 2024(3) dt.16-04-2024 2/2 in the F.I.R, in her statement before police station under section 161 Cr.P.C as also under section 164 Cr.P.C it is submitted that there is material difference in the same. The petitioner who is a good student and has a good career ahead of him has been falsely implicated in the case only for the reason that he was not ready to marry. He is in custody since 6.10.2023 and does not have any criminal antecedent. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R together with the informant having supported the allegations in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same within a period of six months. (Partha Sarthy, J) Harsh/- U T