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.
The court concluded that “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. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. However, because of the 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 the law, without being prejudiced by the present order.”
