Lalan Kumar @ Lalan Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13189 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2020 Thana- KIUL District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Lalan Kumar @ Lalan Kumar Yadav, Son of Tunni Yadav, Resident of Village Goddih, P.S. Kiul, District Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 24-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual court proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of normal court proceedings. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Kiul P.S. Case No.36 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner along with other co-accused persons named in the FIR forcibly kidnapped the daughter of the informant on the point of arms.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which the victim has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13189 of 2021(2) dt.24-01-2022 2/2 stated that the petitioner has not kidnapped her. She willfully married him and she wants to live with her husband, Lalan Kumar. It is also submitted that other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 06.01.2022, passed in Cr. Misc. No.39330 of 2020. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Taking into consideration the facts that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and the victim does not support the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., let petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in connection with Kiul P.S. Case No.36 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.) Sanjay/- U T