Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25585/2020rejected

Mohan Kumar @ Mohan Das v. The State Of Bihar

2020-10-14Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25585 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-337 Year-2018 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== MOHAN KUMAR @ MOHAN DAS Son of Kishori Lal Das Resident of Village- Mustafapur, P.S.- Meenapur, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Yugal Kishore For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 14-10-2020 Heard both sides through Video Conferencing.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Meenapur(Minapur) P.S. Case No.337 of 2018 registered under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that his minor daughter was kidnapped by unknown persons on 10.08.2018 near the house of the informant. His daughter was studying in class eight. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the investigation, victim was recovered from the house of Chhote Lal Yadav on 02.09.2018. The victim made statement that Mohan Lal Yadav and Vikash Kumar took her. Mohan Lal Yadav committed rape with her but the victim made her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she disclosed that she was having love affairs with Vikash Kumar and she did not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25585 of 2020(2) dt.14-10-2020 2/2 make any allegation of rape against the petitioner. It is further submitted that Vikash Kumar put on trial. The victim also deposed during the course of trial but she did not name the petitioner.

Perused the record. It appears that case is of the year 2018. The victim made allegation that the petitioner along with the other accused persons kidnapped her and petitioner committed rape with her but the petitioner is absconding and, therefore, the trial of co-accused, Vikash Kumar was separated and he was put on trial.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T