Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17112/2025dismissed

Munna Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2025-03-19Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17112 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-389 Year-2021 Thana- EKMA District- Saran ====================================================== Munna Ram Son of Singashan Ram @ Singasan Ram Resident of villageNawalpur PS- Daraundha District -Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 19-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner in association of other co-accused is said to have kidnapped the wife of the informant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the occurrence took place on 30.08.2021 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 01.10.2021 i.e. after delay of more than one month without assigning any reason. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17112 of 2025(2) dt.19-03-2025 2/2 rather general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 20.01.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that considering the nature of the allegation, the petitioner does not deserve bail.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T