Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16045/2016rejected

Ram Lal Paswan And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar

2016-07-14Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16045 of 2016 (4) dt.14-07-2016 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 16045 of 2016 Arising out of P.S. Case No. - 92 Year - 2012 Thana - MOTIPUR District - MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Ram Lal Paswan, Son of Jiwar Paswan

2. Manju Devi @ Manju Raba Devi, Wife of Ram Lal Paswan

3. Mohan Paswan, Son of Bhikhar Paswan

4. Pramod Paswan, Son of Ram Lal Paswan, All are resident of village Kushi, P.S. Motipur, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Hirday Pd.Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 14-07-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Motipur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2012, registered for the offences punishable under Section-304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Informant alleged that her daughter was married with Ajay Paswan in the year 2000, but the petitioners in-laws and the husband of her daughter subjected her to mental and physical torture. The case after case was filed but the accused persons compromised the case and took her daughter on promise to keep her properly. It is alleged that her daughter is traceless. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are in-laws of Geeta Devi. It has come that Geeta Devi

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16045 of 2016 (4) dt.14-07-2016 2/2 and her husband are traceless. It appears from the case diary as well as the allegation made in the First Information Report that Geeta Devi herself lodged two cases, but on both occasions the petitioners in-laws and her husband took her on the promise to keep her properly, but thereafter Geeta Devi is traceless. The case is of the year 2012 but the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge on 17.05.2014 and the petitioners filed this anticipatory bail in the year 2016 only.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to grant the petitioners anticipatory bail.

Kundan/- (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) U T