Oral order rejecting the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail in a case involving rape and POCSO charges. The Court rejected the claim that the FIR was a counter-blast and denied bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12926 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 2015 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- MUNGER
====================================================== 1. Md. Raja S/o Md. Fasi Ahmad Resident of village / Mohalla - Hajratganj, Bara, Gali No. 15, P.S. Kasimbazar, District - Munger .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar Choudhary For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhuranand Jha(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER
3 19-04-2016 Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the APP for the
State.
Petitioner is accused of Mahila P.S. Case No. 09 of 2015 registered under Sections 341, 323, 376/504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the POCSO Act.
As per the F.I.R., the petitioner came on to the door of the informant and at gun point took her to the up stairs and committed rape.
Contention of the petitioner is that both parties are neighbours. It would appear that marriage negotiations were going on. The mother of the petitioner lodged a case prior to the present one vide Annexure-2. As a counter blast, the present case has been lodged.
Learned APP opposed the prayer and contended that the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12926 of 2016 (3) dt.19-04-2016
2/2
explanation is there in the first information report as an attempt was made to get the marriage solemnized which ultimately failed and in these circumstances, the case was lodged.
Taking into account the rival contentions and the allegations attributed to the petitioner, I am not persuaded to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer is, accordingly, rejected.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)
Pankaj/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the privilege of anticipatory bail should be extended to the petitioner accused under Sections 376 of IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the allegations constitute genuine FIR or a counter-blast in matrimonial context.
Md. Raja
The State of Bihar
Kishore Kumar Mandal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
