Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23648 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2021 Thana- PARBATTA District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNIL MANDAL Son of Prayag Mandal Resident of Village - Athgama, P.O.- Gangapur, P.S.- Sultanganj, District - Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Chandra Shekhar Anand For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Lal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 30-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No.144 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is said to have kidnapped the wife of the informant for the purpose of marriage.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and only on suspicion, the petitioner has been made accused in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23648 of 2022(2) dt.30-08-2022 2/2 case. It is submitted that the petitioner is the brother-in-law of the victim and due to having malicious view in the part of the informant, the petitioner has been implicated in this case. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Sanjay/- U T