Upendra Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27526 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -95 Year- 2014 Thana -SHEKHPURA District- SEKHPURA ======================================================

1. Upendra Singh Son of Late Laljeet Singh

2. Sandeep @ Sanjeev Son of Upendra Singh

3. Vijay Singh Son of Shiv Balak Singh

4. Dhananjay Singh @ Dhananjay Son of Shiv Balak Singh

5. Gopal Son of Sushil Singh All residents of Village - Belchhi, P.S. - Karande, District - Sheikhpura.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Nagendra Kumar S/o sri Yogendra Singh R/o vill. Dhanpur, P.S. Kasichak, Dist. Nawada at present Baleswar Lodge Barbigha ( Sheikhpura) .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Syed. Rizwanul Haque For the Opposite Parties : Mr. M.Dayal (App) For the Informant : Mr. Kamal Deo Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 23-06-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma for the informant and Mr. Dayal learned APP for the State.

Five petitioners herein apprehend their arrest in connection with Sheikhpura P.S. case no. 95 of 2014, registered under Sections 365/34 of the IPC.

On the basis of the FIR lodged by the victim himself alleging that he was forcibly kidnapped/abducted by the accused persons including the petitioners herein and thereafter was made to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27526 of 2014 (6) dt.23-06-2015 2/2 marry with the daughter of petitioner no.1. In the process he was also assaulted by the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in fact, the marriage was solemnized with the consent of the parties whereafter demand was raised by the informant and his family members which was not fulfilled and thereafter case has been lodged .

Learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, submits that the case was lodged promptly on 12.3.2014 itself. The victim was produced for statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C in which he has supported the allegation spelt out in the FIR.

Considering the facts of the case, in my view, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Prayer is rejected.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U T