Yogendra Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15644 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2019 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

YOGENDRA RAM Son of Khushilal Ram Resident of Village-Toriyahi, P.S.-Laukaha (Lalmaniya), District-Madhubani. 2.

Mahendra Ram Son of Khushilal Ram Resident of Village-Toriyahi, P.S.- Laukaha (Lalmaniya), District-Madhubani.

3.

Rajendra Ram Son of Khushilal Ram Resident of Village-Toriyahi, P.S.- Laukaha (Lalmaniya), District-Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rudal Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-11-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State through Video Conferencing.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, petitioners along with other accused persons kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant for the purpose of marriage.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that due to land dispute the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and the falsity appears from the fact that the occurrence

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15644 of 2020(4) dt.12-11-2020 2/2 took place on 11.03.2019 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 19.03.2019 after a lapse of 8 days. There is no explanation as to why the F.I.R. has been lodged after such an inordinate delay. It is further submitted that, in fact, the informant has given false information that her daughter was kidnapped by accused persons but the true story is that the victim girl went to her nanihal. It is further submitted that on perusal of Annexure 2 it appears that the victim girl is major. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners in paragraph 3 of the bail petition that petitioners have got no criminal antecedent.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioners. Moreover, the daughter of the informant is still traceless.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant them bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Ankit/- U T