Md Mainuddin @ Mainuddin v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2009 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2020 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Md Mainuddin @ Mainuddin S/o Md. Usman R/o Village- Madho Chapra, P.S.- Karja, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anita Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 30-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for informant and learned APP for the State. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Kanti (Panapur O.P.) P.S. Case no. 241 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 363, 366(A), 328, 506, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner and coaccused person abducted the minor daughter of the informant, from her school by administering obnoxious material due to which she became senseless, for the purpose of human trafficking.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has got no criminal antecedent. He has falsely been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2009 of 2022(4) dt.30-11-2022 2/2 made accused in this case.

Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of taking away of the minor victim girl forcibly in order to sell her in the market. It is further submitted that statement of victim and other witnesses have also supported the prosecution version of this case.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that there is direct allegation of abduction against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail, the same may be considered by the court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) shivani/- U T