Patna High CourtCR. MISC./18890/2022rejected

Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2022-09-21Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18890 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-147 Year-2017 Thana- LAKHNAUR District- Madhubani ====================================================== SANJAY KUMAR YADAV Son of Mahavir Yadav Resident of village - Ward No. 3, Phulban, Tatuar, P.S.- manigachhi, District - Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kumari Shubham For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 21-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Lakhnour R.S.O.P. P.S. Case no. 147 of 2017 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is a case of abduction.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Only with a view to harass and torture the petitioner, present case has been filed against him. Due to some previous enmity between the parties, he has been falsely implicated in this case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18890 of 2022(2) dt.21-09-2022 2/2 Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that statement of the victim girl was got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has stated about the complicity of the petitioner in abduction. She has further alleged that petitioner had established physical relationship with the victim girl five months before. He further submits that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that there is direct allegation of abduction and committing rape against the petitioner upon the niece of the informant, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U