Muninder Singh @ Narendra Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32791 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2014 Thana- MAHISHI District- Saharsa ====================================================== Muninder Singh @ Narendra Sah Son of Darbari Singh Resident of Village Kotha P.S. Katra District- Shahjahanpur (Uttar Pradesh) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 28-06-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Mahishi P.S. Case no. 160 of 2014 registered under sections 366A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the minor daughter of the informant was kidnapped and taken away for the purpose of marriage. She was married to the petitioner. The informant states that inspite of search she was not to be found.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. From the contents of the F.I.R it would transpire that the person who took away the daughter of the informant was Umesh Sah and not the petitioner. Though the daughter of the informant was married to the petitioner, however the marriage has since broken down.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32791 of 2024(3) dt.28-06-2024 2/2 The petitioner is in custody since 23.2.2020 and undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, not only the petitioner is named in the F.I.R by the informant stating that his minor daughter was married to the petitioner but in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C, the age of the victim was assessed to be 15 years and she has made direct allegation against the petitioner and others of having committed rape upon her. She has also been examined in course of trial. As per the report from the learned trial Court, the trial is expected to conclude within a period of 6 months.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

8. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Harsh/- U T