Patna High Court - Orders
Md. Monazir vs The State Of Bihar on 3 April, 2014
Author: Akhilesh Chandra
Bench: Akhilesh Chandra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.5588 of 2014
======================================================
Md. Monazir, Son Of Md. Taslim, Resident Of Village-Bharko, P.S.-
Amarpur, District-Banka
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Rai, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA
ORAL ORDER
3 03-04-2014Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant, who appeared voluntarily and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State were heard at length.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with a case instituted under Sections 323, 504, 120B, 376 and 511/34 of the Indian Penal Code but cognizance has been taken for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Petitioner is one of the named accused in the complaint case with allegation of sexual exploitation of the complainant (aged 19 years) for the last one year under the false pretext of marriage but ultimately refused to do so in collusion of his family members other co-accused none-petitioners in spite of assurance given, to the same effect, in a 'panchayati' organized.
Submission is of false implication with ulterior Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5588 of 2014 (3) dt.03-04-2014 2/2 motive and placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kaini Ranjan vs. The State of Kerala reported in 2013 (4) PLJR 414 SC that no offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out.
On the other hand, learned counsel representing the complainant while objecting the prayer for bail submitted that since by mis-representation complainant was sexually exploited not only the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is made but the offence also attracts the provision as contemplated under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State endorsed the view expressed above.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, nature of allegation and the alleged sexual exploitation of the prosecutrix, at the time of just attaining the age of 18 years, the petitioner appears not entitled for the privilege sought.
Hence, his prayer for anticipatory bail, in connection with Complaint Case No.585 of 2012, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka is hereby refused.
(Akhilesh Chandra, J) Ashwini/-