Disposed

Kumar Gupt Vaibhav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Aug 2022CR. MISC./2318/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail in connection with offences under various sections of the IPC. The petitioner was ordered to remove defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month; otherwise, the matter would be brought to the Court's notice.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of prayer for anticipatory bail; direction to remove stamp defects within one month.

Kumar Gupt Vaibhav Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2318 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

KUMAR GUPT VAIBHAV SON OF RLAM VILAS YADAV R/O VILLAGE- TADILA, P.S.- HASANPURA, DISTRICT- SIWAN

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Singh For the State : Mr.Md. Matloob Rab, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 10-08-2022

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶15

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 376, 420 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Patna Mahila P.S.Case No. 59 of 2021.

¶16

As per allegation, the petitioner developed love and affection with the prosecutrix ten years prior to lodging of the FIR and he denied to marry the prosecutrix. There is also allegation that he got her pregnancy terminated in a clinic

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2318 of 2022(2) dt.10-08-2022 2/2

¶18

situated in Exhibition Road.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 376 of the IPC is not attracted since the act of the petitioner does not come under the definition of rape.

¶20

There is allegation that the petitioner sexually exploited the prosecutrix and he forcibly got her pregnancy terminated without her consent. She has supported her version in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

In view of allegation, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

¶22

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

¶23

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶24

HR/-

¶25

U T

Kumar Gupt Vaibhav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Gupt Vaibhav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tahmid Alam @ Lal Babu Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Parikha Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Jitan Kumar @ Jivitan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bhulendra Bind @ Bhulendra Bin Vs The State of Bihar

Imteyaz Ahmad Vs the State of Bihar