Shankar Pal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.983 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-282 Year-2019 Thana- CHENARI District- Rohtas ====================================================== SHANKAR PAL Son of Dipti Pal Resident of Village - Khurmabad, P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.
Manoj Ram Son of Late Motilal Ram Resident of Village - Khurmabad, P.O. and P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar Pandey For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 02-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been directed against the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasram in connection with Chenari P.S. Case No. 282 of 2019 for the offence registered under Sections 366A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (I) (r) (s) of SC/ST Act , whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that actually the case relates to love affair between the appellant and the daughter of the informant. It is further submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.983 of 2020(3) dt.02-06-2020 2/2 first informant report has been lodged after five days of the alleged occurrence. Appellant is in custody since 09.12.2019. Hence, the appellant may be enlarged on regular bail. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the appellant and submits that the appellant is named in the first information report. He further submits that there is specific allegation of kidnapping the daughter of the informant against the appellant. As such, he does not deserve the privilege of regular bail.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) Jagdish/- U T