Soni Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25126 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2018 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.

Soni Sharma Son Of Beechan Sharma R/O Village- Jairampur, P.S.- Murliganj, Dist.- Madhepura 2.

Pintu Mandal Son Of Mahendra Mandal R/O Village- Harpur, Kala, P.S.- Murliganj, Dist.- Madhepura 3.

Trilok Yadav Son Of Mohan Lal Yadav R/O Village- Narlakhi, P.S.- Jankinagar, Dist.- Purnea 4.

Pawan Ram Son Of Domi Ram R/O Village- Korlaahi, P.S.- Murliganj, Dist.- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 20-01-2022 This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Kateya P.S. Case no. 152 of 2018 instituted for the offence under Sections 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25126 of 2021(2) dt.20-01-2022 2/2 As per allegation in the FIR, these petitioners are involved in abducting the minor daughter of the informant, aged 16 years, forcefully and administered her intoxicated drugs.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are falsely implicated in this case and have committed no offence. They have got no criminal antecedent. There is no specific allegation of rape against these petitioners as per the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C..

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail by submitting that the victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that the petitioners were also accompanied to the main accused Byash Yadav in kidnapping her.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners and as such their application for bail is rejected.

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