Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15170/2020bail rejected

Anand Kumar @ Rahul Kumar @ Humpal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2020-10-12Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15170 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2019 Thana- AIRPORT District- Patna ====================================================== Anand Kumar @ Rahul Kumar @ Humpal Kumar S/O- Umesh Prasad Ray Resident of village - Sharda Nagar, Ward No. 27, Kahara, P.S. and District - Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nafisuzzoha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 12-10-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Hawai Adda P.S. Case no. 156 of 2019 registered under sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation in the FIR, it is stated by the informant that his 14 and half year old minor daughter went to the market and disappeared. It is stated that on receiving call on her mobile she used to talk on the mobile number given in the FIR.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation as levelled in the FIR are false and concocted. The petitioner and the daughter of the informant were friends and the allegation that the petitioner had kidnapped her is false. She had gone with the petitioner out of her own volition. She has returned and was living with her parents. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

The case diary called for in the case has been received.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15170 of 2020(4) dt.12-10-2020 2/2 The application for bail is opposed by learned counsel for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the case diary, it transpires that the daughter of the informant in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C has made allegation of rape against this petitioner. Thus, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and as such this application is rejected.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U