Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19418/2023rejected

Anil Kumar @ Anil Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2023-08-23Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19418 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2022 Thana- MEHSI District- East Champaran ====================================================== ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL SAH SON OF LATE RAM DAYAL SINGH R/O VILLAGE- RAMPUR SHANKAR, P.S.- MEHSI, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bal Govind Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Nazir Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 23-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 366A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is of abducting the daughter of the informant for the purpose of solemnization of marriage with her.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. He submitted that petitioner is already a married man, who is having minor children and he is only the sole earning member of his family. He further submitted that the informant and the petitioner are belongs to the same village and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19418 of 2023(5) dt.23-08-2023 2/2 due to village dirty politics and personal enmity and grudge, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 09.11.2022.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that the victim girl has recovered and her statement has been recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C., in which she stated that this petitioner made her senseless and taken away her in Chakiya and kept in his sister-in-law's house and committed rape upon her, which corroborates the prosecution case. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

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