Patna High CourtCR. MISC./33979/2015dismissed

Atama Singh @ Atma Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2015-10-15Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33979 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -78 Year- 2014 Thana -KASHICHAK District- NAWADA ====================================================== Atama Singh @ Atma Singh, son of Sri Ram Balak Singh, R/o Village - Tundo, P.S. Jamui, Distt. Jamui.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.K. Lal and Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, Advocates.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.K. Khare, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 15-10-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Sections 365, 368/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant named Raj Narayan, Bhishma Narayan, Shri Narayan and Chiku Singh and alleged that they all took her son Raunak Kumar on the pretext of making payment of dues but her son Raunak Kumar did not return. Sri S.K. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Even the victim Raunak Kumar did not name the petitioner in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that Raunak Kumar had love affairs with the daughter of the petitioner and they solemnized marriage after leaving their house. Raunak Kumar was not recovered from the house of the petitioner.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33979 of 2015 (3) dt.15-10-2015 2/2 It appears from the statement of Raunak Kumar recorded in Para 53 of the case diary that he very categorically stated that after having been kidnapped he was brought in Village Dundo and was forcibly married with a minor girl in the temple. The victim was forcibly married with the daughter of the petitioner and he was confined in the room of the petitioner. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in Kashichak P.S. Case No. 78/2014. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T