← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./23280/2022bail rejected

Bipin Yadav @ Bipin Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2022-11-23Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23280 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-223 Year-2021 Thana- LAURIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Bipin Yadav @ Bipin Kumar Yadav Son Of Sri Manai Yadav @ Manlal Yadav Resident Of Village - Padari, P.S.- Lauriya, Distt.- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 23-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act.

It is alleged by the informant that his minor daughter namely Seema Kumari has been abducted by all the F.I.R named accused persons including the petitioner.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23280 of 2022(3) dt.23-11-2022 2/2 petitioner that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case and in the background of some previous dispute, the petitioner has been roped in the present case. A statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent. In contra, learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that the victim in her 161 and 164 Cr.P.C statement has specifically alleged the involvement of the petitioner along with other co-accused in her abduction. In the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner stands rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Shageer/- U T