Ramnath Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15023 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2018 Thana- NATIONAL HIGHWAY DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== Ramnath Sah S/o Late Narsingh Sahi R/o Mohalla- Bari Kalyani, P.S.- Town, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Madhura Nand Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3.

01-09-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in N.H. Bangra P.S. Case No. 33 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 363 and 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the F.I.R., the informant has alleged that on 22-04-2018, his minor daughter went to her neighbour's house, but did not return from there. The informant has further alleged that on the next date, he came to know that co-accused Santosh Kumar Sah, in connivance with other accused persons including petitioner, has kidnapped his daughter for the purpose of marriage.

It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15023 of 2020(3) dt.01-09-2020 2/2 innocent and has committed no offence. Entire allegation is against co-accused Santosh Kumar Sah. So far as petitioner is concerned, he is brother-in-law (cguksbZ) of co-accused Santosh Kumar Sah. It is further submitted that date of occurrence is 22-04-2018 and F.I.R. has been lodged on 26-04-2018 and there is no explanation for the same.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that during course of investigation, it has come that this petitioner has hatched a conspiracy in the kidnapping of minor daughter of informant and after the occurrence, co-accused Santosh Kumar Sah has talked with petitioner so many times on mobile phone and proclamation has already been issued against the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the fact that the victim is still traceless, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.) anay U T