The court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner as he was arrested under Sections 420, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 404020 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 The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State For the Informant Mr. N K Agrawal Senior Advocate with Mr. Uday Kumar Advocate Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha APP 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. 120 dated 16.07.2020 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.404020 dt.03 08 2021 instituted under Sections 420 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal 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.404020 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 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.404020 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

Summary: In connection with Aurangabad Mahila PS Case No. 15 of 2020 dated 16.07.2020. The petitioner was arrested under Sections 420 IPC, “Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property”, section 376, “Punishment for rape” and 506 IPC, “ Punishment for criminal intimidation.” This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by the honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 3rd August 2021, in the case of Akhilesh Singh @ Akhilesh Kumar versus the State of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 40409 of 2020, Mr. N K Agrawal represented as the senior advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Nath represented as the additional public prosecutor for the state of Bihar. The proceedings of the court were held through a video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the informant was married to Munna Singh however her husband passed away in the year 2016 leaving behind two minor children one 6 years and another 4 years, the informant came in contact with the petitioner through Facebook and both of them fell in love. The petitioner was a constable in the Border Security Force and called the informant to live with him in Mughalsarai on 24.10.2019, things went on fine and they were in touch and the petitioner put vermilion on her forehead in a temple indicating marriage and the petitioner also on the 21.06.2020 came to Aurangabad and lived with the informant for 10 days. However, after the petitioner left, he later disclosed that he was already married and threatened the informant. The counsel for the petitioner held that according to the FIR, it has been transpired that the informant also played a major role in the relationship and was fully aware of the circumstances and the Physical relationship was purely consensual and the informant was throwing allegations against the petitioner because she wanted money and has lodged this false case and the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent. The Additional Public Prosecutor held that the informant is a young widow could have not agreed to enter into a casual relationship. Based on the facts and circumstances, it is clearly a false assurance was given and the petitioner physically abused the informant. The counsel representing the informant submitted that as the informant is a young mother of two children could not have entered into the same as it is against the natural human behavior and the act of putting vermilion on her forehead in a temple fooled her into marriage, further her family members have disowned her due to this relationship.  Therefore the conduct of the petitioner from the start was not bona fide.