Akhilesh Singh @ Akhilesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3943 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 40409 of 2020
    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Aurangabad
 ======================================================

Akhilesh Singh @ Akhilesh Kumar, aged about 35 years, Male Son of Hiranandan Singh, Resident of village- Yadavpur, PO- Pirouta, PS- Ara Mufassil, District- Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N K Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, APP For the Informant : Ms. Mukul Kumari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 03-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of

motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioner on

29.07.2021, which was allowed.

3. Heard Mr. N K Agrawal, learned senior counsel along

with Mr. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.

Rajendra Nath Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

(hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State and Ms. Mukul

Kumari, learned counsel for the informant.

4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Aurangabad Mahila PS Case No. 15 of 2020 dated 16.07.2020, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40409 of 2020 dt.03-08-2021

instituted under Sections 420, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code.

5. The allegation against the petitioner is that the

informant was earlier married to Munna Singh, who died in the

year 2016, leaving behind two children aged 6 and 4 years and

then she came in contact through Facebook with the petitioner and

both are said to have fallen in love. Further, it has been stated that

the petitioner, who is a constable in the Border Security Force,

called her to Mughalsarai on 24.10.2019 and there she lived and

also had physical relationship. The informant has stated that the

next day, the petitioner had put vermilion on the forehead of the

informant in a temple and they were in regular touch on mobile

and further that on 21.06.2020, the petitioner had come to

Aurangabad and lived with her for 10 days and went back on

01.07.2020 and when on 02.07.2020, she contacted the petitioner

on his mobile, he disclosed that he was already married and he

also threatened her.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

from the FIR, it transpires that it was the informant who had

pursued the relationship with the petitioner and further that she

was fully aware of the circumstances. It was submitted that

because there may have been some contact between the parties but Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40409 of 2020 dt.03-08-2021

that was purely consensual and the informant was trying to extract

money from the petitioner due to which she has lodged this false

case. It was submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal

antecedent.

7. Learned APP submitted that the informant being a

young widow, could not have entered into a casual relationship

and from the circumstances, it is clear that false assurance was

given and the petitioner had physically abused the informant.

8. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that she

being the mother of two children, could not have entered into such

relationship as it is against natural human behaviour and further

that there was no occasion for the petitioner to put vermilion on

her forehead in a temple as that was what had made her confident

that the petitioner had married her. Further, it was submitted that

her family members are aware of the development and now she is

being disowned by them and is isolated in her family also for

having developed relationship with the petitioner. It was further

submitted that the conduct of the petitioner was from the

beginning not bona fide as he only wanted to have physical

relationship with the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40409 of 2020 dt.03-08-2021

9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

10. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

11. However, in view of submission of learned counsel

for the petitioner, it is observed that if the petitioner appears before

the Court below and prays for bail, the same shall be considered

on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being

prejudiced by the present order.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T