Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21560/2020dismissed

Ram Pukar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2020-07-24Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21560 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-342 Year-2019 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur ====================================================== RAM PUKAR SINGH Son of Late Mannu Singh Resident of VillageBasadhiya, Ward No.7, P.S-Dalsinghsarai, District-Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Navjot Yeshu, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J.K.Singh, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 24-07-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conference. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter shall be removed, and compliance with the conditions of the notices of this Court with regard to acceptance of e-filing shall be made, without delay immediately after the lockdown ends, and in any event within one month thereof.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 01.03.2020 in connection with Dalsinghsarai P.S. Case No. 342 of 2019 for the offences alleged under Section 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with the kidnapping of the informant's minor daughter said to be aged about 16 years and 08 months. It is submitted that the petitioner is the father of co-accused Sandeep Kumar who is said to have taken away the informant's minor daughter as he was desirous of marrying her. The allegation that the petitioner sent his son and the informant's daughter away from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21560 of 2020(2) dt.24-07-2020 2/2 house, is made on mere suspicion. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

4. Learned APP appears and opposes the petition, submitting that the minor girl is still traceless and no statement has been made to suggest that the petitioner's son is in custody.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and the gravity of offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed.

6. Office shall ensure that all defects have been removed and compliance with the notices of this Court has been made, within the stipulated time as provided in para 1 hereinabove. (Vikash Jain, J) HR/Ibrar U