Rakesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22324 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2024 Thana- Panchanpur District- Gaya ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar Son of Rajendra Yadav @ Bayash jee Resident of village - Jhaman Bigha, P.S.- Goh, District - Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Kanti Devi Wife of Udal Yadav Resident of village - Tepa, P.S.- Panchanpur, District - Gaya ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ramesh Chandra, APP For the Informant :

None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 23-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary. Despite valid service of notice, none appears on behalf of the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Panchanpur P.S. Case No. 72 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner has kidnapped informant's minor daughter for the purpose of marriage, whereas the petitioner is already a married man.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22324 of 2025(4) dt.23-07-2025 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is delay of seven days in lodging the FIR. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has stated that she on her own will has gone with the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 29.06.2024 and has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation of kidnapping informant's minor daughter and the petitioner is already a married person. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T