Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19775 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2024 Thana- DARIYAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Son of Late Nageshwar Rai Resident of Village -Manpur, P.S.- Dariyapur, Distt.- Saran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 08-07-2025 Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dariyapur P.S. Case No. 298 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, daughter of the informant was abducted by the petitioner along with other persons for marriage when she was on her way to the hospital with Rs. 20,000/- and jewellery.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19775 of 2025(3) dt.08-07-2025 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is delay of 23 days in lodging the FIR. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. No specific allegation has been attributed against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 20.12.2024 and has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that there is allegation against the petitioner that he had abducted informant's daughter along with cash of Rs. 20,000/- and four sets of jewelleries for the purpose of marrying her. The victim has stated specifically against the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T