Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29070/2017rejected

Shobha Devi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-26Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29070 of 2017 (4) dt.04-10-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29070 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -81 Year- 2015 Thana -SAHODARA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Shobha Devi Wife of late Arbind Panjiyar

2. Vishwa Pratap Panjiyar Son of late Arbind Panjiyar Both are Residents of Village- Dewad, Police Station- Sahodra, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt Renu Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 04-10-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Govindpur Police Station Case No. 26 of 2017, disclosing offences under Sections 341, 323, 448, 366, 380, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner, who is of 18 years old, is student of B.A. and he has falsely been implicated in this Case. The victim, who is married and aged about 22 years, in her statement under 164 Cr.P.C. has not disclosed any

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29070 of 2017 (4) dt.04-10-2017 thing against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that there is specific allegation of assault and abduction of victim against the petitioner. Moreover, para-47 of the case diary, which is medical report also support the prosecution version.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U