Raja Sahni @ Raja Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20511 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-472 Year-2023 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran ====================================================== RAJA SAHNI @ RAJA KUMAR SON OF CHANDESHWAR SAHANI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SINGAHA, P.S. - HARSIDHI, DISTRICT - EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, Adv.

For the State :

Mr.Dilip Kumar No.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 02-04-2024 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned APP for the State. 2.

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No.472 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 366/34 of the IPC.

3.

Allegedly, the daughter of the informant is said to have been abducted by the F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioner for the purpose of her marriage with the petitioner. 4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. No such occurrence in the manner as alleged has ever taken place. There is an inordinate delay of 15 days in lodging

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20511 of 2024(2) dt.02-04-2024 2/2 the F.I.R., which itself creates doubt about the prosecution case. There was love affair between the victim and the petitioner and the girl being a major voluntarily fled away with the petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is specific allegation against the petitioner and the victim in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case, which fact has come in the impugned order.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T