Patna High CourtCR. MISC./18917/2017bail granted

Lalsa Devi And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-07-06Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18917 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3493 Year- 2015 Thana -GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGOPALGANJ ======================================================

1. Lalsa Devi, Wife of Jai Prakash Rai.

2. Nagendra Rai, Son of Baccha Rai, Both residents of Village- Jalalpur, Police Station- Sindhwalia, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Ram Ayodhya Rai, son of Late Gorakh Rai, Resident of VillageJalalpur, P.S.- Sindhwalia, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-07-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Registration Case No. (Complaint) 3493 of 2015, corresponding to Trial No. 183 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner Lalsa Devi took his daughter but her daughter did not return. The complainant further alleged that he brought his daughter from Kolkata. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the date of occurrence is 23.03.2015 and the complaint petition was filed on 17.04.2015. The victim was not examined during course of enquiry. The petitioners are next door neighbour and co-sharer of the informant.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18917 of 2017 (3) dt.06-07-2017 2/2 The petitioner no. 2 happens to be uncle of the victim. Title Suit No. 120 of 2013 is also pending between the informant and the petitioners. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. It appears that the daughter of the complainant is said to have been kidnapped but after recovery the victim was not examined. The victim was examined only after eight months of her return. Even the complaint petition was filed after her return. There is a land dispute. The petitioner no. 2 is happens to be uncle of the victim.

Considering the facts aforesaid, the petitioners above named in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Judge-XI, Gopalganj in Registration Case No. (Complaint) 3493 of 2015, corresponding to Trial No. 183 of 2017, Subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.)