Nurain Ansari @ Md. Nurain Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5533 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2017 Thana- SURSAND District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Nurain Ansari @ Md. Nurain Ansari, aged about 23 years, Sex-M, Son of Md. Bashir Ansari, Resident of village and Post- Barahi, P.S.-Parihar, DistrictSitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-02-2019 The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A,506 and 504/34 of the IPC. The petitioner is languishing in custody from 11.05.2017.

The prosecution case as per the written report of Md. Sattar Raayin dated 25.04.2017, submitted to the S.H.O., Sursand Police Station is to the effect that on 21.04.2017, at about 7 P.M., the daughter of the informant, namely, Tabassum @ Raani went to attend a marriage ceremony, but she did not return by 9 P.M. It is alleged that the petitioner rang up on the mobile of the son of the informant claiming that he has kidnapped the daughter of the informant and when the informant went to the family of the petitioner then they abused the informant. It is further alleged that on 24.04.2017, the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5533 of 2019(2) dt.01-02-2019 2/2 daughter of the informant informed her brother that she has been confined.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the occurrence of 21.04.2017, the FIR was registered on 25.04.2017. In fact that there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim and in that background, the accusation has been levelled.

Considering the fact that the accusation against the petitioner is of kidnapping the minor girl and keeping in view that the impugned order which suggests that two witnesses have been examined, this Court is not inclined to revise the earlier order.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected, in connection with Sursand P.S. Case No. 116 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned F.T.C.-II, Sitamarhi. Let the Trial Court expedite the trial.

If the trial is not concluded within a period of six months, then the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Amrendra/- U T