Satyendra Yadav @ Satyendra Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17621 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2018 Thana- JOGAPATTI District- West Champaran ====================================================== Satyendra Yadav @ Satyendra Kumar Yadav, Son of Sri Bhuteli Yadav Resident of Village- Jamuniya, P.S.- Jogapatti (Shanichari), District- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP representing the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jogapatti P.S. Case No. 167 of 2018, registered under Sections 363, 365 and 370 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that the son of the informant was taken to Barabanki, Lucknow by the petitioner with the assurance that the petitioner would provide him a job of Rs. 7,000/-. It has further been alleged that after about one month, when the informant tried to contact the petitioner on cell phone, the petitioner could not be contacted and he went to his home after a month, the petitioner told the informant that he does not know the whereabout of the informant's son. It is further been alleged that thereafter the informant tried to search his son, but his son has not been traced

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17621 of 2019(6) dt.16-07-2019 2/3 out.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is quite innocent and son of the informant is major having reasonable intellects. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is delay of above 9 months in lodging the First Information Report inasmuch as when after a month petitioner told the informant that he was not knowing the whereabout of the son of the informant, the First Information Report has been lodged after lapse of 9 months as mentioned therein.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the case is serious in nature and merely delay, on the part of the informant in informing the police, may not be taken as a ground for grant of bail inasmuch as in this case the boy has not been recovered till date and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner by the police may be necessary. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that boy has still not been recovered and the fact that the petitioner had taken the boy on the assurance of giving him a job, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17621 of 2019(6) dt.16-07-2019 3/3 petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) Sujit/ S. Katyayan/- U T