Rajeev Kumar @ Raju Operator v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39135 of 2017 (4) dt.12-12-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39135 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -64 Year- 2017 Thana -CHANDI District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar @ Raju Operator, Son of Chhote @ Naresh Yadav, R/o Village- Koklakchak, P.S.- Noor Sarai, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Nirmala Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 12-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chandi P.S. Case No. 64 of 2017, registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Sections 364(A) and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been added, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Hilsa, Nalanda at Biharsharif. The accusation is that husband of the informant, Pinki Kumari, moved to the house on 05.03.2017 at about 8 P.M. saying to return after few minutes, but he did not return. The informant searched her husband, but no trace was found then she lodged the present case against unknown.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39135 of 2017 (4) dt.12-12-2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of written report of the informant the present case was lodged on 07.03.2017 after two days of occurrence, but in course of investigation, on 14.04.2017, after one month and ten days, the statement of brother-in-law and sister of the victim were recorded by the Investigating Officer, who disclosed that the victim was seen with the petitioner along with Indu Devi, Jhunnu Yadav, Raju Yadav and Tula in Maruti Van, at 8 P.M., in Chandi Market. Thereafter, Raju Yadav was apprehended, who disclosed the name of petitioner having hand in the kidnapping of husband of the informant.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T