Avinash Kumar @ Avinesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16652 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-333 Year-2023 Thana- KALYANPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Avinash Kumar @ Avinesh Kumar Son of Raghwendra Ram Resident of Village- Medan Sirsiya Police Station -Kalyanpur District-East Champaran 2.

Rahul Kumar Son of Chandeshwar Ram Resident of Village- Medan Sirsiya Police Station -Kalyanpur District-East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Most. Sunaina Kunwar Wife of Late Banti Ram Resident of VillageShambhuchak, Ward no. 10, Ps- Kalyanpur, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Karandeep Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in Kalyanpur P.S. case No. 333 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363/366(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant namely, Most. Sunaina Kunwar, alleged that, named accused persons under a conspiracy took away daughter of informant aged about 16 years and when informant went to enquire about same, named accused persons abused her and threatened her to kill and also ousted her from their house. Thus, informant believes that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16652 of 2025(4) dt.10-07-2025 2/2 co-accused Prakash Kumar kidnapped her daughter with the intention to marry. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. stated that Prakash Kumar (coaccused) kidnapped her with the help of both these petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the name of petitioners transpired during the course of investigation. The petitioners claim clean antecedent.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. wherein she stated that both petitioners were involved in her kidnapping, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

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