Sudhir Singh @ Sudhir Raut v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1098 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2016 Thana- NATIONAL HIGHWAY DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== 1.
Sudhir Singh @ Sudhir Raut Son of Raj Kumar Raut, Resident of VillageKubauli Ram, P.S.- N.H. Bangra, District- Samastipur. 2.
Sangeeta Devi Wife of Sudhir Singh @ Sudhir Raut, Resident of VillageKubauli Ram, P.S.- N.H. Bangra, District- Samastipur. ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr.Pramod Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 24-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl. PP for the State.
This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.02.2019 passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Samastipur in N.H. Bangra P.S. Case No. 94 of 2016 registered under Sections 366(A), 376, 120B and 376 (K) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
At the instigation of one Rakhi Kumari, the daughter of the informant eloped from her house. On the way, appellant Sudhir Singh and his wife Sangeeta Devi and one another lady met her and took her in their house and locked her there and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1098 of 2019(3) dt.24-06-2019 2/3 thereafter took her to some unknown place and got her married there with one Tuntun Mahto. The victim was recovered from the house of Tuntun Mahto.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. The allegation levelled against the appellants is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. As a matter of fact, the victim was in love with Tuntun Mahto and she had left her house out of her sweet will with said Tuntun Mahto. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has candidly stated that she had voluntarily left her house. She has denied the offence of her kidnapping. Appellants have no criminal antecedent. Similarly situated co-accused namely Rakhi Kumari, Meena Devi and Marni Devi have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by different co-ordinate Benches of this Court. Learned Spl. PP for the State opposed the prayer for bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named appellants, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1098 of 2019(3) dt.24-06-2019 3/3 amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Samastipur in N.H. Bangra P.S. Case No. 94 of 2016, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) mantreshwar/- U T