Ankit Raj vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 210 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32252 of 2020
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2020 Thana- BEN P.S. District- Nalanda
======================================================

Ankit Raj, Male, aged about 24 year, S/o Shri Ganga Bishun Yadav @ Ganga Bishun Prasad, R/o Village- Bhaur Bigha, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate with
                                  Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, Advocate
For the State            :        Mr. Anil Kumar, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 20-01-2021

Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior counsel along

with Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

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

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Ben

PS Case No. 33 of 2020 dated 26.02.2020 (G.R. No. 1013 of

2020), instituted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had

physical relationship with the informant on the pretext that he

would marry her but later he refused to do so.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from

the FIR itself, it is clear that if at all there was a relationship, it

was consensual. Learned counsel submitted that in her statement Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32252 of 2020 dt.20-01-2021

to the Court under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') she has

stated that she had gone to Biharsharif with her mother where

the petitioner had come and then alone with the petitioner she

had gone to some hotel where also it is alleged that the

petitioner had intercourse, it cannot be believed that a mother

would leave and allow her young daughter to go alone with

somebody. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to

Annexure-3, which is copy of a petition filed by the informant

before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda in the present

case, in which she has negated the allegations which have been

levelled in the FIR and has also stated that she does not want to

pursue the case and has expressed her desire that the petitioner

be released on bail. Learned counsel submitted that no element

of rape is made out against the petitioner and he has been falsely

implicated as the family members of the informant wanted him

to marry her and upon refusal this false case has been filed. It

was submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 27.02.2020.

5. Learned APP submitted that from the FIR and the

statement of the girl before the Court it is clear that initially

there was rape and later, on the pretext of marriage, the

petitioner had continued with physical relationship and after a Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32252 of 2020 dt.20-01-2021

long period of almost three years he had refused to do so. It was

submitted that filing of a petition before the Court below by the

informant negating everything said in the FIR and the statement

before the Court under Section 164 of the Code and also

expressing the desire not to pursue the case and also consenting

for the petitioner to be released on bail is in fact a clear

indication that it is a blatant attempt of tampering with evidence

and managing the witnesses. It was submitted that at this stage,

such petition cannot be relied upon as it is at total variance of

the initial FIR which has resulted in the police finding substance

in the allegations and also filing charge-sheet against the

petitioner and now it would be open to the petitioner to contest

the trial.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, for the

present.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T