This order rejects an anticipatory bail application under CrP.C. Section 438 filed by a petitioner accused of raping a minor, administering abortifacient, and failing to marry her.
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.28012 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Samastipur
======================================================
GOLU KUMAR @ SAURAV KUMAR Son of Raghunath Jha @ Bandhu Jha Resident of Village - Kalyanpur Milki, P.S.- Bibhutipur, District - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjit Kumar Thakur For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.A.G. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
12 16-12-2021
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Women Police Station Case No. 24 of 2020, disclosing offences under Sections 376(D)(a), 313 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 18 of POCSO Act.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed rape along with other co-accused persons upon the informant aged about 15 years. He allured her for marriage and on several occasions, he committed rape upon the victim and when she became pregnant, the petitioner administered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28012 of 2020(12) dt.16-12-2021 2/3
medicine causing into abortion.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. It has further been submitted that there is delay of one and a half years in lodging of the present case.
On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that the petitioner after alluring the minor victim for marriage subjected her under sexual relation for a long duration and he also caused terminated her pregnancy by administering medicines. He has also submitted that the witnesses in paragraph No.4 and 5 have fully supported the prosecution case and the victim herself in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has narrated the entire occurrence with allegation that the petitioner has committed rape upon her on the pretext of marriage.
The reason for delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained in the FIR itself which shows that the victim and his family members were taking efforts for marriage of the informant with the petitioner but ultimately the petitioner refused to marry with the informant.
Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28012 of 2020(12) dt.16-12-2021 3/3
petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is dismissed.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J)
sanjeev/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of raping a minor, administering abortifacient, and subsequently marrying her?
Golu Kumar @ Saurav Kumar
The State of Bihar
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
