Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24482/2024bail rejected

Satyam Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-30Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24482 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-319 Year-2023 Thana- BACHHWARA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Satyam Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar S/O Sri Sanjay Rai Resident Of VillageJahanpur Bahrampur, P.S- Bachhwara, Distt -Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 30-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Bachhwara P.S. Case No. 319 of 2023, lodged on 09.10.2023, under Sections 363/365 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, allegation of kidnapping is against the petitioner with a view to marry with the victim.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. The Antecedent of the petitioner is clean. He is in custody since 03.02.2024. Counsel submits that on the previous occasion case diary and statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were called for. Counsel further submits that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. no allegation of misbehave has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24482 of 2024(3) dt.30-05-2024 2/2 made against the alleged victim by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the section in which offence has been alleged, ingredients of this section is present in the case diary as well as in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

6. Upon the specific query of the Court that whether charge has been framed or not. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per his knowledge charge has not been framed.

7. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly the prayer for bail of the petitioner is refused. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner that he may renew the prayer for bail after framing of the charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./Ankit U T