Ruby Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15707 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-989 Year-2023 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== 1.
Ruby Devi Wife of Pramod Kumar Resident of Yadav Toil, Near Shiv Mandir, Kumhrar, Police Station- Agamkuan, District- Patna 2.
Prerna Kumari @ Ruchi @ Prerna @ Ruchi Kumari Daughter of Pramod Kumar Resident of Yadav Toil, Near Shiv Mandir, Kumhrar, Police StationAgamkuan, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Asha Kumari, A.P.P.
For the Informant :
Mr. Arvind Kumar Mouar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, informant and the State.
2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in case registered for the offence punishable under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 22.10.2023 at 11:00 PM, after talking to the petitioner No. 2 on phone for about half an hour, son of the informant left the house and did not return. F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners are innocent and are victims of the circumstances. As per F.I.R., son of the informant left the house on call of the petitioner No. 2 and stopped at her house for five minutes and thereafter, he left. As a matter of fact, the victim
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15707 of 2024(4) dt.09-07-2024 2/2 was in love with petitioner No. 2. They are of the same caste and hence, their parents were ready for their marriage. But later on, parents of petitioner No. 2 came to know that the victim is a drug addict and hence, the marriage could not be solemnized. It is further submitted that for the purpose of marriage, petitioner No. 1 had given Rs. 20 lacs to the informant and when parents of petitioner No. 2 came to know about the truth, they demanded the money back and then the informant refused to return the money and only with a view to grab the entire amount, this false and concocted case has been lodged against these petitioners.
5. However, learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail application and submitted that on the date of occurrence, these petitioners and the victim contacted 24 times on call and the victim left the house after talking to petitioner No. 2. The victim is still traceless and his scooty was found near the house of these petitioners.
6. Considering the backdrop of the case and the fact that the victim is still traceless, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is refused.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T