Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.38746 of 2011 ====================================================== Vipin Kumar Roy @ Vipin Roy, son of Sri Yamuna Roy, resident of Mohalla – Amla Tola, Dharamsala Road, P.S. – K. Hat in the District of Purnia. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL ORDER 3 12-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State who is armed with carbon copy of the case diary. The petitioner is one of the two named accused and now only surviving apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. CA 633 of 2011 for offences under [STATUTE] pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnia, arising out of K.Hat P.S. Case No. 182/2010 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnia. Earlier, at the instance of complainant K. Hat P.S. Case No. 182 of 2010 was instituted against two persons including the petitioner with allegation of initial sexual exploitation by the deceased accused (local MLA) for the last about three years when the lady came in contact with him in connection with some affairs Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38746 of 2011 (3) dt.12-03-2012 2 / 3 2 of school and connecting things, soon thereafter, the petitioner, as alleged, started black-mailing and exploiting sexually the complainant informant. Subsequently, as stated in present protest complaint she was put under consistent pressure to withdraw the case and record statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. contrary to allegations leveled resulting submission of final form in the said case on 31.08.2010, mainly based on her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 18.06.2010, final form was accepted and case is now proceeding on protest complaint, wherein she has explained the circumstances under which she was forced to act against her will and wishes. Submission is of false implication and delay in institution of the case and also delay in raising any complaint against the pressure tactics adopted resulting into death blow to the earlier instituted case and even if there was any such relationship it may be presumed to be with her consent. It is also submitted as against the complainant informant one K. Hat P.S. Case No. 4/2011 under [STATUTE] has also been instituted for allegedly killing co-accused (local MLA). While objecting the prayer, it is submitted that complainant a lady suffered a lot and when from no corner she got any ray of relief, under compelling circumstances, if at all, she has Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38746 of 2011 (3) dt.12-03-2012 3 / 3 3 killed the MLA for which another case is going on. This itself indicates about the sufferings and miseries faced by her at the hands of petitioner and his deceased boss. No doubt, there appears some delay in raising any such complain against undue force being exercised upon her during pendency of earlier case and protest complaint has now been filed with some explanation for the delay. However, taking into consideration, the gravity, nature of allegation petitioner appears not entitled for the privilege sought. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby refused. Rajeev/- (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.