IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64944 of 2021

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2018 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Katihar

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

MD. MEJAR @ MD. MEJAR ALAM S/o Abdul Gani R/o village- Bartabari,

P.S.- Azamnagar, District- Katihar

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Md. Musowir, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J.N. Thakur, APP

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR

PANDEY

ORAL ORDER

2

20-07-2022

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all

the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.

J.N. Thakur, learned Addl.P.P for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with

Mahila P.S. Case No. 51 of 2018, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 376, 506, 365, 313/34 of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and 5 of Immoral Traffic Act.

As per allegation, the prosecutrix aged about 16 years

made allegation that the petitioner in absence of her parents

came to her house and committed rape. He threatened to kill had

the informant dared to narrate the occurrence to her parents.

Later on, he committed rape several times. When she became

pregnant, the accused persons kidnapped her and forcibly got

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64944 of 2021(2) dt.20-07-2022

2/2

her pregnancy terminated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the entire allegation is false. He has submitted further that the

prosecutrix is not minor, in medical report her age has been

assessed as 25 years.

On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P., Mr. J.N. Thakur, has

submitted that the present petitioner committed rape upon the

prosecutrix several times and he threatened her to kill had she dared

to narrate the occurrence. The victim in her statement under section

164 of the Cr.P.C. has also supported the occurrence.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and

circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege for

anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the

petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove,

failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

SONALI/-

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

U

T