Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16823/2021rejected

Rajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2022-03-24Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16823 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2020 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur ====================================================== RAJESH KUMAR SON OF SULINDER RAY@ SURENDRA RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BHAGWANPUR, CHAKSIMA, POLICE STATION- SHAHPUR PATORI, DISTRICT -SAMASTIPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 24-03-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 84 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under section 363, 365 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. The present first information report has been lodged after six days of the alleged occurrence without any explanation. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16823 of 2021(8) dt.24-03-2022 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report and there is specific allegation of abducting the daughter of the informant. The victim is minor and is still traceless. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T