Patna High CourtCR. MISC./33847/2017dismissed

Raj Kumar Dharkar @ Laddu Dharkar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-26Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33847 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -120 Year- 2017 Thana -MURLIGANJ District- MADHEPURA ====================================================== Raj Kumar Dharkar @ Laddu Dharkar, son of Vishwanath Dharkar, R/o Village- Murliganj, Dharkar Tola, Ward No.09, P.S.- Murliganj, DistrictMadhepura. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is an application for bail in connection with Murliganj P.S.Case No. 120 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioner is named in the FIR and the case is of kidnapping of daughter of informant. It further appears that under Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement the victim girl has named the accused persons as kidnappers and she was taken to Katihar. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is four days delay in recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim girl and further submission is that there is no allegation of rape or anything else against the petitioner and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33847 of 2017 (2) dt.26-07-2017 2/2 further there is contradiction between the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and petitioner is in custody for more than one month.

Heard learned APP also.

Having heard both sides and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, prayer for bail is rejected. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude it within nine months. With the above observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U