Shankar Kumar Kushwaha @ Shankar Bihari @ Shankar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 58976 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-553 Year-2013 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== SHANKAR KUMAR KUSHWAHA @ SHANKAR BIHARI @ SHANKAR KUMAR Son of Sonelal Singh Resident of Village - Patiyasa jalal , Mirzapur, P.S.- Ahiyarpur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.- 843103 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raushan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 07-02-2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ahiyarpur P.S. Case No. 553 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 367, 368, 374, 323, 324, 327 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The elder sister of the informant was admitted in hospital and the victim, who is an unmarried girl, was her attendant in hospital. She, along with Pinki Kumari went out of hospital to bring some water but they did not return. Later on, Pinki Devi was recovered and she disclosed that when they went

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 58976 of 2021(9) dt.07-02-2023 2/2 out of hospital, one bolero vehicle came there and the accused persons named in the FIR, including the petitioner, forcibly abducted Pinki Kumari and the victim Taimul Khatoon in that vehicle.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and the victim has solemnized marriage with one Sujeet Kumar, after conversion of his religion. on the other hand, the learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that two girls were kidnapped by the accused persons named in the FIR, including the petitioner. Both of them supported the occurrence. The statement of victim Taimul Khatoon is in paragraph no. 20 of the case diary, in which she has named the present petitioner.

In my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/Nirmal U T