MANKHUSH KUMAR GUPTA v. The State of Bihar
Court: Patna High Court
Bench: MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Judgment date:
Case summary
Patna High Court judgment dated 2020-03-16. MANKHUSH KUMAR GUPTA v. The State of Bihar. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 67210 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No. -168 Year-2019 Thana- DHAMDAHA District- Purnia ====================================================== Mankhush Kumar Gupta Son of Dilip Kumar Gupta Resident of Village- Dharhar, Jamunia, P. S. - Dhamdaha, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/s N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, Dr. Bidhu Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 3 16-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dhamdaha P. S. Case No.
168/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447,341, 323,376,504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is specific allegation of rape against the petitioner and the victim has supported the prosecution case at paragraph 3 of the case diary. However, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that informant lodged this false case on account of dispute of debt taken by informant and his other family members and the aforesaid fact has been supported by some of the prosecution witnesses, who were examined in course of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 67210 of 2019(3) dt. 16-03-2020 2/2 investigation. He, further, submits that there is inordinate delay in lodging the present case. Moreover, the petitioner lodged a case against informant and when the informant got knowledge about the institution of case by the petitioner against the informant and her other family members, the informant lodged the present case.
Regard being had to the above stated facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. However, it is made clear that this order shall not cause any prejudice to the concerned court at the time of consideration of regular bail application of the petitioner. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) Spd/- U T
Source: Patna High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.