Patna High Court/20185/2021bail rejected

Vikash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2021-12-20Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20185 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2018 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna ====================================================== VIKASH KUMAR Son of Yogendra Sharma @ Yogendra Singh @ Yogi Singh Resident of Village - Manjhauli, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Distt.- Patna (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, when called upon to do so by the office. The petitioner is/are apprehending his/their arrest in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 09 of 2018 for the offence registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Dinesh Kumar Singh, who happened to be the informant of the case, lodged the instant case alleging therein that his son Amit Kumar, aged about 12 years went missing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20185 of 2021(2) dt.20-12-2021 2/2 petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the State on perusal of the impugned order submits that the victim boy namely, Amit Kumar aged about 12 years in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that the petitioner, who is dewar of his sister had brought him to Patna and kept in Magadh Hotel, Boring Road, Patna and thereafter, one Chintu Tiwari brought him to village - Dhanarua. The boy ultimately was recovered from the co-accaused, Chintu Kumar. Hence, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.

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