Bachcha Pd. Yadav @ Bachcha Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.46532 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -410 Year- 2017 Thana -MOTIHARI MUFASIL DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================
1. Bachcha Pd. Yadav @ Bachcha Yadav, son of late Rajendra Prasad Yadav,
2. Babloo Kumar, son of Bachcha Pd. Yadav @ Bachcha Yadav, both resident of village- Mathia Bariyarpur, P.S.- Piprakothi, District- East Champaran. At present Arya Bhatt Public School, Godhwa Chowk, P.S. Muffasil, District- East Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 5/ 07-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State as well as counsel for the Informant. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Muffasil P.S. Case No.410 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 363, 365 Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari. Allegation against the petitioners is that ten years old son of the informant was student of Arya Bhatt Public School, Godhwa Chowk, Motihari, of which petitioners were Director and Principal respectively. It is alleged that the informant went on 27.07.2017 in the hostel to meet his son and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46532 of 2017 (5) dt.07-02-2018 2/3 he was informed by the Director and Principal of the school that the son of the informant is not available in the hostel since 25.07.2017 and he had gone to his house. Informant enquired as to how they have allowed him to go to house without any information to him, then this petitioner did not give reply and assured to search out the boy. But even after five days the boy could not be searched.
Case diary has been received.
Counsel for the informant has appeared and submitted he was not informed by the school authorities about missing of his son. He learnt only on 27.07.2017 when he visited the school.
Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out para 16 and 17 of the case diary, wherein, staffs of the school have stated that boy was not found in the school on 25.07.2017 after lunch hours.
In this manner, statement of the office staff also supports that boy was missing since 25.07.2017. In such circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46532 of 2017 (5) dt.07-02-2018 3/3 Petitioners may surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed off in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Sanjay Priya, J) JA/- U T