Single Judge permitted no anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged rape, cheating, and dowry prosecution, rejecting the application as processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. had already been issued against him.
Application for anticipatory bail rejected.
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.29950 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Buxar
======================================================
MUNNA KUMAR S/o Mithilesh Prasad R/o village- Inrpatpur, P.S.- Piro, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prabhat Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER
4 26-04-2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Buxar Mahila P.S. Case no. 62 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 420, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
As per allegation in the FIR, marriage of the informant was fixed with the petitioner and ring ceremony was performed on 17.12.2019. Petitioner had called the informant at Patna for shopping of marriage and booked a room in a hotel showing their identity as husband and wife . It is further alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29950 of 2021(4) dt.26-04-2022 2/2
that petitioner had established physical relation with her on the pretext of marriage.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner has not committed any sexual assault to the informant. Informant herself is a police personnel. In fact, there was some difference in the opinion of their parents, so petitioner has been made scapegoat.
Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that in para nos. 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the case diary, several witnesses have supported the prosecution story. It is further submitted that processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. have been issued against the petitioner. It is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that processes u/s 82 and 83 have already been issued against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to him and, as such, his application for bail stands rejected.
(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J)
sushma/- U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner apprehending arrest in a case involving rape, cheating, and dowry-related offences.
Whether the issuance of processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. and the nature of allegations constitute a fit case for anticipatory bail.
Munna Kumar
The State of Bihar
Aarti Kumari
Sunil Kumar Panwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
