Bechan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20143 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2018 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.

BECHAN YADAV Son of Late Bhola Yadav Resident of Village - Chaughara, Ward no.07, P.S. and Distt.- Supaul. 2.

Punam Devi W/o Bechan Yadav Resident of Village - Chaughara, Ward no.07, P.S. and Distt.- Supaul.

3.

Mithilesh Kumar Son of Late Lakhan Yadav Resident of Village - Chaughara, Ward no.07, P.S. and Distt.- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 20-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners are expected to honour their undertaking to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, when called upon to do so by the office. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 22 of 2018 for the offence registered under Sections 363, 366 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation, as alleged against the petitioners is that they abducted the daughter of the informant, namely, Saraswati

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20143 of 2021(2) dt.20-12-2021 2/2 Kumari, aged about 14 years.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Learned counsel for the State resists the submission made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that the petitioners and co-accused persons abducted and kept her confined in a room at Saharsa for 8 days and committed sexual act and sold her to a handicapped person in Purnia. Hence, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. It is, accordingly, rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Jagdish/- U T