Bambholi Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.61902 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2017 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== Bambholi Ram S/o Sahdeo Ram, R/o Village- Aliganj, P.S.- Barhara Kothi, District- Purnia.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh-1 (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 15-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 120 of 2017 registered under Sections 366(A), 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The daughter of the informant is said to have been kidnapped by four accused persons named in the First Information Report along with two other unknown miscreants in course of regression to her house after attending the call of nature.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no concern with the aforesaid occurrence. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.61902 of 2017(3) dt.15-03-2018 2/2 happens to be one of the family members of the co-accused namely, Raj Kumar Dharkar @ Laddu Dharkar. In fact, the victim was in love with Raj Kumar Dharkar @ Laddu Dharkar and eloped with him suo motu. The petitioner has been languishing in custody since 30.08.2017.

On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that the victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as 164 Cr.P.C. has named the petitioner as one of the accused who had kidnapped her and took her away to Katihar and from there to Hariyana and wanted to dispose her off. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to deserve bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer is rejected.

However, learned lower court is directed to dispose of the case, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within nine months, from the date of commitment of the case. (Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) rohit/- U T