Pramila Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21169 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-571 Year-2022 Thana- ARWAL District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.
Pramila Devi Wife Of Surendra Yadav Resident Of Village - Dilawarpur, P.S. -Devkund, District - Aurangabad (Bihar) 2.
Surendra Yadav Son Of Late Sitaram Yadav Resident Of Village - Dilawarpur, P.S. -Devkund, District - Aurangabad (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar Bihar 2.
Mithelesh Singh Son Of Chandradev Singh Resident Of Village - Rojapur, P.O., P.S. And District - Arwal ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shovendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Amitesh Kumar Mr. Shiopujan Singh Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-10-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 02.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Arwal P.S. Case No. 571 of 2022 registered for offences under Sections 363 & 365 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 364, 302, 201, 376, 120B & 420 of the Indian Penal Code was added.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners are the parents of main accused Ranjit Kumar. The accused Ranjit Kumar had finalized his marriage with the daughter of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21169 of 2024(5) dt.04-10-2024 2/2 informant but subsequently main accused Ranjit Kumar refused to marry with the informant's daughter after getting the job. The petitioners had taken Rs. 9 Lakh in their bank account on different occasions from the informant. The informant alleged that the petitioners and the main accused Ranjit Kumar had kidnapped the daughter of the informant and killed her.
4. Materials have come to connect the petitioners with the crime. The dead body of the deceased is traceless. In the facts of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary for tracing the victim girl.
5. The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T