Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21292/2024dismissed

Arjun Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-04Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21292 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2022 Thana- DARPA District- East Champaran ====================================================== ARJUN KUMAR SON OF SHIV MANGAL RAI R/O-BADHUAHIYA, P.S.- DARPA, DISTT.-EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nityanand, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 04-04-2024 Heard Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Darpa P.S. Case No. 60 of 2022 for the offence registered under sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code and section 8 of POCSO Act lodged on 06.05.2022 by the informant, Suresh Mahto.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, as follows:- (i) On 30.04.2022, at about 10:00A.M., his daughter went towards the field and did not return for a long time; (ii) efforts to find her were made, but in vain. The informant noticed that his daughter took away 20,000/- cash while going;

(iii) the informant alleges that his daughter-in- law

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21292 of 2024(2) dt.04-04-2024 2/2 informed that all accused six persons have enticed away his daughter for the purposes of marriage;

(iv) local villagers assured him about the safe return of his daughter, however, being apprehensive of any misfortune he is lodging the present case.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that due to land dispute, the girl was taken away. In fact, some of the accused persons faced Trial No. 08 of 2023 and have been acquitted on 03.08.2023.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, points out that despite the trial going on, the petitioner remained an absconder; even after the acquittal of three persons on 03.08.2023, it took six months for him to approach this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate that the petitioner seeks bail.

7. Cr. Misc. No. 21292 of 2024 stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Neha/- U T