Lal Kishore Singh @ Lalan Kishore Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34361 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -52 Year- 2016 Thana -PATAHI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== LAL KISHORE SINGH @ LALAN KISHORE SINGH Son of late Sri Narayan Singh Resident of Village- Gonahi, P.S. - Patahi, District East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-10-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Patahi P.S. Case No. 52/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The sister of the victim alleged that the petitioner kidnapped her minor sister on 16.04.2016. The sister of the informant rang the informant from mobile no. 8521847970, but the petitioner did not allow her to talk with the informant. The petitioner disclosed that her sister was at Delhi railway station. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The victim was found at the railway station along with her father and sister. There

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34361 of 2016 (3) dt.19-10-2016 2/2 is no material to show that the petitioner kidnapped the victim. During course of investigation the witnesses have stated that the father of the victim had taken money from the petitioner and when the petitioner demanded money he has falsely been implicated in this case, but it appears that there is specific allegation that the petitioner kidnapped the minor sister of the informant. The victim herself disclosed in her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. that the petitioner took the victim on the pretext that his wife called her, and thereafter offered soft drink mixed with intoxicant to the victim. The victim became unconscious after taking the soft drink and the petitioner took her to different places and to Delhi. Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that the victim made very specific allegation against the petitioner that it was the petitioner who kidnapped her, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T