Ajay Saday @ Ajay Kumar Saday @ Ajay Sada v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11280 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2019 Thana- ARER District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

Ajay Saday @ Ajay Kumar Saday @ Ajay Sada Son Of Late Sogarat Saday Resident Of Village - Paraul, P.S.- Arer, Distt.- Madhubani. 2.

Krishna Saday @ Krishna Sada Son Of Sograt Saday Resident Of Village - Paraul, P.S.- Arer, Distt.- Madhubani.

3.

Punita Devi W/o Sograt Saday Resident of Village - Paraul, P.S.- Arer, Distt.- Madhubani.

4.

Sograt Saday @ Sogarath Saday @ Sogarath Sada Son of Late Chulhai Saday Resident of Village - Paraul, P.S.- Arer, Distt.- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners :

Mr.Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Ajit Kumar, Addl Public Prosecutor For the informant : Mr.Subhash Kr.Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-06-2020 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 366A/34 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution's case in short is that all the petitioners kidnapped informant's 16 years old daughter on the pretext of solemnizing marriage with her.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. FIR

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11280 of 2020(2) dt.22-06-2020 2/2 has been lodged on 14.11.2019 for the alleged offence of 6.11.2019 without explanation of delay. Petitioners have got no criminal antecedent.

Learned counsel for the informant referring to section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim submits that the victim has clearly stated in her statement that petitioner no.1 took away forcibly the victim after sprinkling something on her mouth. It is further alleged that at the time of recovery of the victim from maternal uncle's (Mama) house, rest petitioners were also present there. In view of the nature of allegation, prayer for bail of the petitioners is refused with direction to surrender and seek regualr bail which would be considered on its own merit without prejudice.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T