In a criminal miscellaneous matter concerning an anticipation of arrest under IPC 376/493, the Patna High Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail. The court found the petitioner did not deserve enlargement despite claims of innocence and lack of criminal antecedents.
Prayer 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.27433 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
MD. ALAM S/o Late Md. Sajrul R/o village- Gangapur, P.S.- Mushari, Distt.Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Bipin Chandra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER
5 01-02-2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 07 of 2022 registered under Section 376/493 of the I.P.C.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Both the parties are co-villagers. Further he submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that petitioner is named in the first information report. There is direct allegation of physical relation with the informant on the pretext of marrying her. The witnesses have also supported the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27433 of 2022(5) dt.01-02-2023 2/2
prosecution case. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and nature of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
shailendra/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner named in the FIR alleging false implication.
Whether petitioner deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail given the direct allegations of physical relation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Md. Alam
The State of Bihar
Arvind Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
