Suman Kumar Singh @ Suman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28030 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2018 Thana- MAHNAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== SUMAN KUMAR SINGH @ SUMAN KUMAR S/o Ramchander Singh Resident of Village-Kadilpur, P.S.-Mahua, District-Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocate.

For the State :

Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 22-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahnar P.S. Case No.70 of 2018 registered under Sections 364 and 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation is that the marriage of the informant Indal Kumar Rajak was performed in the year 2009 with Mamta Devi, daughter of Anil Chaudhary of village-Kadilpur, P.S. Mahua, District-Vaishali, and due to wedlock, both were blessed with two females and one male issues. In front of the house of the wife of the informant, the house of Suman Kumar Singh (petitioner) is situated but there is no good relation with the petitioner and in-laws of the informant. In the evening of

2/4 16.04.2018, Mamta Devi, the wife of the informant, received information on her mobile through Mobile Nos.8521588760 and 9525320603 belonging to Suman Kumar Singh (petitioner) to the effect that her grandfather is ill, then Mamta Devi, the wife of the informant, told her father-in-law for going to her Maika due to illness of her grandfather. Thereafter, Mamta Devi, the wife of the informant, left her matrimonial house with an attachee, leaving her three children but she did not reach at her Maika. Thereafter, the informant tried to talk to Suman Kumar Singh (petitioner) on the aforesaid mobile numbers but both the aforesaid mobile numbers were found switched-off. Then the informant made query about his wife Mamta Devi at his Sasural but he was informed that his wife did not reach there.

Thereafter, the informant approached Arvind Kumar Singh and Raju Singh, the cousin and own brother respectively of Suman Kumar Singh (petitioner) and made query to them, then Arvind Kumar Singh talked to his cousin Suman Kumar Singh (petitioner) but, after sometime, Arvind Kumar Singh informed the informant that Suman Kumar Singh did not give proper reply, then the informant came in suspicion that his wife Mamta Devi having ornaments and cash Rs.

3/4 of Arvind Kumar Singh and Raju Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would appear from the F.I.R. that there was strained relation in between the family of the petitioner and the family of the Maika of Mamta Devi, the wife of the informant, due to that reason, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case in collusion with the informant and his in-laws keeping Mamta Devi for sometime away to her Maika. Further submission is that it would also appear from the case diary that Mamta Devi, the wife of the informant, was accompanied from Delhi by the informant himself and it is not detailed anywhere therein that the petitioner was seen at that place and on pressure of her Maika people, Mamta Devi, the wife of the informant, has disclosed the name of the petitioner about taking her from her Maika on the pretext of illness of her grandfather. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender by him within six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial

4/4 Magistrate-VI, Vaishali at Hajipur, in connection with Mahnar P.S. Case No.70 of 2018, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T