Chanar Rai @ Chandra Rai @ Sudhir Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17499 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-308 Year-2012 Thana- DESARI District- Vaishali ====================================================== CHANAR RAI @ CHANDRA RAI @ SUDHIR RAI Son of Shiv Chandra Rai Resident of Village - Ishakpur Tek, Ward No. 17, Police Station - Mahnar, District - Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Madhu Prasun, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 23-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 366A, 363, 364A, 365, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, on the pretext of reaching the wife and daughter of the informant to their destination, it is stated by the informant that they were kidnapped on the date of occurrence ie 27.8.2012 and have not been recovered. It is further stated by the informant that ransom calls demanding Rs. one lac was received by him from the mobile numbers given in the FIR.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17499 of 2022(3) dt.23-12-2022 2/2 that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only for the reason that he happened to be one of the co-passengers in the said tempo. He has no concern with the driver or owner of the vehicle nor with occurrence. He is in custody since 5.10.2021 and no material has transpired in course of investigation to connect him with the alleged crime. Heard learned counsel APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a named accused in the FIR registered on 4.12.2012, the wife and the daughter of the informant who were kidnapped have still not been recovered after 10 years and the petitioner continued to abscond for 9 years till he was taken into custody on 5.10.2021, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Spd/- U T