Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19272/2023dismissed

Sonu Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2023-07-17Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19272 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2021 Thana- TEYAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== SONU RAM S/O RAJ MOHAN RAM Resident of Village- Shivsagar, P.S.- Tiyar, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kamlesh Prasad Yadav, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366(A), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegedly, petitioners are said to have helped one Pankaj Kumar Paswan in abduction of informant's daughter.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. Petitioner has no concern with co-accused Pankaj Kumar Paswan. Similarly situated co-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19272 of 2023(4) dt.17-07-2023 2/2 accused, namely, Haricharan Paswan and Suman Devi, who are parents of co-accused Pankaj Kumar Paswan, have been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate bench of this court vide order dated 23.11.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32718 of 2022. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the case diary indicates the complicity of the petitioner in the present case, hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T