Hon'ble Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a rape case, finding no inclination to grant relief despite petitioner's claim of false implication.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is 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.9994 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Buxar
======================================================
GOLU MISHRA @ AMRIT KUMAR S/o- Paras nath Mishra R/o- Vill - Kanjarua, P.S. - Koran Sarai, District - Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Digvijay Kumar Ojha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER
3 01-09-2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State and perused the case diary.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrested in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
It is a case of commission of rape with the informant/victim by this petitioner inside Hotel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case as the FIR has been lodged after much delay. He further submits that the victim was in love affair with another boy and she was in the verge of fleeing with that boy and the said information was given by the petitioner to her co-villager and the said co-villager informed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9994 of 2022(3) dt.01-09-2022 2/2
the family members of the girl and in retaliation, this petitioner was implicated in this case.
In contra, learned counsel for the APP submits that the victim has directly taken the name of this petitioner in committing rape and she has also supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and during investigation, the I.O. has also supported the case of the prosecution.
After considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J)
Brajesh Kumar/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner apprehending arrest in a rape case.
Whether the allegations of false implication in a delayed FIR warrant anticipatory bail.
Golu Mishra @ Amrit Kumar
The State of Bihar
Sunil Kumar Panwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
