Kunal Kumar @ Kunal Raj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13132 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-203 Year-2020 Thana- KHAJEKALA District- Patna ====================================================== KUNAL KUMAR @ KUNAL RAJ Son of Bajrangi Prasad, Resident of Mohalla - Lalatoli, P.S.- Khajekalan, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rudra Deo For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 28-02-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 203 of 2020 registered for offence punishable under sections 363, 364, 379,/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, the informant's son, namely, Ankit Kumar, aged about 16 years, went outside his house, but did not return. Despite hectic search, he is still traceless. The informant has further stated that prior to the occurrence, her son Ankit

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13132 of 2021(4) dt.28-02-2022 2/2 Kumar had some quarrel with co-accused Vicky Kumar and Akash Kumar. In the same day morning, the present petitioner and co-accused Sahil Kumar had manhandled and snatched the mobile phone of Ankit Kumar. The informant expressed her belief that the present petitioner along with Sahil Kumar has disappeared her son.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that up-till-now, no evidence has been emerged against the present petitioner.

The FIR itself shows that on the same day morning, on which day, Ankit Kumar disappeared, the present petitioner and co-accused Sahil Kumar had some altercation with him. The boy is still traceless and the investigation is going on. In these circumstances, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) Mahesh/- U T