Anjesh Kumar Roy And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23062 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -31 Year- 2017 Thana -PARWATTA District- KHAGARIA ======================================================
1. Anjesh Kumar Roy son of Shankar Roy @ Kare Roy
2. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar son of Shankar Roy @ Kare Roy
3. Shankar Roy @ Kare Roy son of Rajendra Roy all residents of village - Chak Prayag, P.S. - Parbatta, District - Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the informant : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 25-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. It has been submitted that during pendency of this petition, petitioner No. 3 namely, Shankar Roy @ Kare Roy has already been arrested and hence, he seeks permission to withdraw this petition with respect to petitioner No. 3. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner No. 3 stands dismissed as withdrawn. So far as petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are concerned; they apprehend their arrest in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 31 of 2017 registered u/Ss-365, 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the written report that the son of the informant was going to house from the market and as soon as he
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23062 of 2017 (2) dt.25-05-2017 2/2 reached near Kamasthan, he was forcibly kidnapped by the miscreants by Scorpio car. It is alleged that the informant informed the police and, thereafter, his son was recovered. After recovery, the son of the informant, disclosed the name of these petitioners as kidnappers and he further stated that he was taken to village-Sonbarsha, wherein; petitioners assaulted him and took Rs. 3000/- and golden chain.
The statement of the victim was recorded u/S 164 of the Cr.P.C. as would be evident from the impugned order, wherein also, he has supported the case and levelled allegation these petitioners of kidnapping.
Therefore, this court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
The petitioners are directed to surrender in the court below and seek regular bail which will be considered and disposed off in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Sanjay Priya, J) A.K.V./- U T