Rajkishore Sahani And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24683 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -38 Year- 2016 Thana -JOGAPATTI DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Rajkishore Sahani Son of Late Durga Sahani resident of village- Sabuni, P.S.- Ramnagar, District- West Champaran

2. Mamta Devi Wife of Bipin Sahani resident of village- Tarkulwa, P.S.- Chautarwa, District- West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr.Indiwar Kumari (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-08-2016 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction in para 2 of the present application. Yesterday the case diary was received by the State counsel and today itself the same has been produced in the Court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are in custody in connection with Jogapatti (Nawalpur) P.S.Case No. 38 of 2016 registered under Sections 363,364-A, 302, 201, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Sri B.K.Rai, A.C.J.M.,-II,West Champaran at Bettiah.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6.2.2016 at about 4 P.M. the informant's son Golu Kumar @ Ankit Kumar aged about 7 years had gone to Nawalpur Bazar at Chhapal shop, when he did not return till 5 P.M. evening, the informant's wife Rani Devi informed the informant on cell phone and thereafter

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24683 of 2016 (3) dt.09-08-2016 2/2 they along with family members started searching him at all places in Bazar and village but his whereabouts could not be traced out.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are in custody since 22.02.2016.Charge sheet has been submitted in this case. The petitioners are not named in the FIR. Their names have come in the confessional statement of coaccused. Petitioner no.2 has no criminal antecedent. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that from perusal of paras 56, 107 of the case diary and para 27 of supplementary case diary it is evident that the son-in-law of petitioner no.1, who is the husband of petitioner no.2 runs a Gang, which is involved in abduction and ransom. The petitioners are members of the said Gang.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the above named petitioners and same is rejected.

Any how, the court below is directed to take all necessary steps to expedite the trial of the case. (Sudhir Singh, J) singh/- U T