Subodh Ojha @ Saroj Ojha @ Subodh Kumar Ojha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6229 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-292 Year-2021 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali ====================================================== SUBODH OJHA @ SAROJ OJHA @ SUBODH KUMAR OJHA S/o Late Ram Narayan Ojha R/o Village - Mishraulia Azadpur, P.S. - Vaishali (Belsar O.P.), District - Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar Manoj For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-08-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks regular bail in Vaishali (Belsar O.P) P.S Case No. 292 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation, on 22.7.2021 petitioner came at the house of the informant and told her that her father was lying ill and after that the informant went with him along with her younger daughter to Mishrauliya Afzalpur but after reaching the informant found that her father was all right and thereafter in the night at 9 p.m, her minor daughter went missing.

The main submissions advanced by Sri Manoj Kumar

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6229 of 2022(3) dt.10-08-2022 2/2 Manoj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner, only suspicion has been raised against him, during investigation it has come to light that socalled victim has some intimacy with non-FIR accused Navneet Thakur and due to said relationship, victim eloped with him. Learned APP Sri Rajendra Nath Jha has opposed the prayer for bail.

Heard both sides and perused the FIR as well as case diary of this case. The petitioner is named in the FIR and the main allegation of having taken the informant and victim from informant's house at the relevant date of the alleged occurrence is against the petitioner. The victim who is stated to be a minor girl of the informant is still traceless and as per informant by making false pretext, petitioner took the informant and her daughter with him. The case is under investigation.

Considering these facts, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

(Shailendra Singh, J) s.hassan/- U T