IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20379 of 2020

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-875 Year-2019 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran

======================================================

SANOJ KUMAR @ SANOJ RAI Son of Devki Rai Resident of Village -

Paharichak, P.S.- Sonpur, District- Saran at Chapra

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP

:

Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

4

17-08-2021

Heard Mr. Prabhakar Singh, learned Advocate

for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, for the

informant. The State is represented by Mr. Parmeshwar

Mehta, learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his

arrest in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 875 of

2019 dated 29.10.2019 instituted for the offences under

Sections 376, 420 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code

and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The accusation in the FIR is that the marriage

of the prosecutrix was fixed with the petitioner but

before the marriage could be solemnized, the petitioner

subjected her to sexual intercourse with her consent. On

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20379 of 2020(4) dt.17-08-2021

2/5

one occasion, when she was found with the petitioner,

she was married to him because of the pressure of the

villagers. Later, the petitioner is said to have run away

from the matrimonial home. The prosecutrix/informant

learnt that the petitioner has married one Rina Kumari

while the marriage with her still subsisted.

The FIR further discloses that the mother of the

petitioner has filed a case against the parents of the

informant for kidnapping the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that from the narration given in the FIR itself,

it would appear that an absolutely false case has been

lodged against him. It was a gun-point marriage where

the petitioner was abducted and was forcibly kept in the

house of the prosecutrix. Somehow or the other, he

could manage to effect his escape but in the meantime,

the subject FIR has been lodged with the allegation of

rape.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further

submitted that initially and in the first instance, a case

under Section 498A IPC was registered by the

prosecutrix. Later, the subject FIR was lodged with the

accusation of rape. He, therefore, submits that the two

accusations cannot be reconciled and if one is true, the

other is false. He further submits that the very act of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20379 of 2020(4) dt.17-08-2021

3/5

filing the second FIR reflects the intention of the

prosecutrix as also her family members to anyhow

bamboozle the petitioner into succumbing to the desire

of the prosecutrix to be kept as his legally wedded wife.

As noted above, the mother of the prosecutrix

has also filed a case against the parents of the

prosecutrix.

As opposed to the aforesaid contention, Mr.

Mishra, learned counsel for the informant has submitted

that the petitioner, being in service, has contracted

another marriage which in itself is an offence and

therefore assuming every other allegation in the FIR to

be debatable and subject to verification, he does not

deserve to be granted anticipatory bail. He further

submits that since the informant is the legally wedded

wife of the petitioner in the event of the case of

abduction and the factum of gun-point marriage not

having been fully substantiated or verified to be true, the

opposite party no. 2 ought to be maintained by the

petitioner as an act of beau-geste.

Having heard the counsel for the parties, what

strikes to this Court in the first instance is the manner