Dharmendra Das @ Dharmendra Tanti v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19882 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-224 Year-2021 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== 1.

Dharmendra Das @ Dharmendra Tanti Son Of Debu Das R/O VillageBalha, P.S.- Dandari, District- Begusarai 2.

Manish Kumar @ Manish Das Son Of Mahendra Das R/O Village- Salauna, P.S.- Bakhari, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bipin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Raj Kishore Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 02-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in nutshell is that one year ago, the petitioners have taken away the husband of the informant to Orissa to earn his livelihood. By telephonic conversation, the husband of the informant told the informant that the petitioners did not give him labour charges and also he was assaulted by them. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19882 of 2022(3) dt.02-11-2022 2/3 further alleged that after sometime the informant was unable to talk to her husband and when she contacted with the petitioners and inquired about her husband, she did not get proper reply.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are innocent and has committee no offence in the manner as alleged. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not contractor and they are not concerned with affairs of the informant and her husband. It is also submitted that there is no document or evidence supported about the taking away of husband of the informant by the petitioners. Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail and submitted that from the perusal of the case diary vide para 5,6,7,8 all the proposed prosecution witnesses have stated about the involvement of these two accused petitioners in the commission of crime. It is also submitted that the husband of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19882 of 2022(3) dt.02-11-2022 3/3 informant is not traced out yet.

Considering the above-stated facts, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners stands rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) nirajkrs/- U T