Vinod Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1684 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2021 Thana- MARANCHI District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

VINOD YADAV Son of Late Bhola Yadav Resident of Village - Maranchi, P.S.- Maranchi, District - Patna.

2.

SUBHASH KUMAR Son of Kishan Yadav According to F.I.R. Resident of Village - Maranchi, P.S.- Maranchi, District - Patna but he Resident of Village - Dumariya, P.S. Mohanpur, District - Deoghar (Jharkhand). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 365 366 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and the informant alleges and on 15.01.2021 when his wife was going to her parental home along with his child aged about one and half years when she met Vinod Yadav who along with the accused persons, including the petitioner, intiesed her and took her to Bangalore by truck, where they stayed for four months, it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1684 of 2022(2) dt.04-08-2022 2/3 is next alleged that Vinod Yadav and Subhas Yadav used to drive car there, it is next alleged that whenever his wife used to ask the accused person to send her back home he used to tell her to give her son and thereafter to leave Bangalore. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case, it is submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that the wife of the informant without her own will whatever accompanied the petitioners to Bangalore, it is further submitted that even wife of petitioner no.

1 was there along with the victim when they left for Bangalore, it is further submitted that it was on persuasion of the victim that the petitioners took her to Bangalore, it is next submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where she has not alleged that any kind of physical or sexual assault was committed on her, nor she alleges that they took her forcefully. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1684 of 2022(2) dt.04-08-2022 3/3 anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Maranchi P.S. Case No. 68 of 2021 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Shivam/- U T