Shashi Kumar @ Shashi Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16679 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-469 Year-2019 Thana- RAMKRISHNANAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== SHASHI KUMAR @ SHASHI YADAV S/o Jai Prakash Rai R/o villageKanauzi, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Binod Murari Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-07-2020 This case has been heard through video-conferencing. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant given a written information alleging therein that his daughter, namely, Rani Kumari, aged about 17 years, left the house on 30.06.2019 in the evening but did not return back to the house till 01.07.2019. It is also alleged that the informant tried to search her but failed to do so. Accordingly, the instant case was lodged.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16679 of 2020(2) dt.17-07-2020 2/2 falsely implicated in this case. The F.I.R. is against unknown. The victim in her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not alleged anything against the petitioner. The petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner of kidnapping the girl along with his three associates. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case and particularly considering the serious allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order on the same very day. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U