Praveen Kumar @ Golu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21735 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1133 Year-2022 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada ====================================================== Praveen Kumar @ Golu, S/O Krishna Prasad, R/O Village- Bela (Police Line), P.S- Akbarpur, Distt.- Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 24-06-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking prearrest bail in connection with Nawada Town P.S. Case No.1133 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the petitioner is that he had sold the six months old baby of the informant to the co-accused Vishwajeet Kumar and Saloni Devi in lieu of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- after the baby was brought to him by the co-accused Chandan Verma.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21735 of 2023(2) dt.24-06-2023 2/2 case. Learned counsel submits that the name of the petitioner has transpired in the confessional statement of the co-accused Chandan Verma and he has no role to play in the kidnapping of the boy.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case wherein it is alleged that this petitioner had sold the baby to the co-accused Vishwajeet Kumar and Saloni Devi in lieu of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- after the baby was brought to him by coaccused Chandan Verma, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is, thus, refused.

In case the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail in the learned court below within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U T