Hari Lal Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21165 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2018 Thana- CHHAURADANO District- East Champaran ====================================================== HARI LAL THAKUR, Son of Late Chokar Thakur Resident of Village - Karmawa, P.S.- Sugauli, Distt - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 02-08-2019 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 162 of 2018, registered under Section 363 and 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, pending in the court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Act, East Champaran at Motihari.

The accusation is that while informant Suga Devi used to reside at her matrimonial house situated in villageJainagar along with her minor daughter Sunita Kumari and her husband used to reside at village-Karmawa. On 08.06.2018, petitioner and Narad Prasad came at the house of the informant and told that her husband is ill and he is admitted in Raxaul

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21165 of 2019(4) dt.02-08-2019 2/2 hospital. Thereafter, informant along with her daughter proceeded with the petitioner and Narad Prasad for Raxaul. When she reached at Raxaul, then petitioner and Narad Prasad kidnapped her minor daughter Sunita, while she searched about her daughter, but no trace was found.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the minor daughter of the informant used to reside at her maternal uncle's house in villageBhagwanpur Pipra, P.S. Rajpur, District-Rohtahat, Nepal, but with ulterior motive and grudge, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T