Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42381/2017rejected

Bittu Kumar And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2017-11-09Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42381 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -74 Year- 2017 Thana -MATIHANI District- BEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. Bittu Kumar son of Sunil Singh

2. Sunil Singh son of Sri Arjun Singh Both residents of Village - Ramdiri Nakti Tola, P.S. - Matihani, District - Begusarai .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, Adv. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP 94 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-11-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Matihani P.S. Case No. 74 of 2017 registered under Sections 363 and 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that the petitioners took his son for the works of cleaner of vehicles on 01.04.2017. The petitioners returned, but, his son did not return. The informant enquired from the petitioners, but, the petitioners did not give any satisfactory reply. When the son of the informant did not return even after lapse of one month, the informant lodged the case. Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the victim went to work as cleaner, but, he committed theft of a mobile of a rice mill owner and fled away from there. The witnesses examined during the course of investigation disclosed that the victim was of dull mind. The maternal-grand-father, grand-mother and maternal-uncle of the victim disclosed that the victim had come to their house a month ago and left their house saying that he was going to his own house. It is submitted that the petitioners are not responsible for missing

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42381 of 2017 (3) dt.09-11-2017 2/2 of the victim, but, it appears that the informant has made very specific allegation that both the petitioners took the son of the informant for the works of cleaner of the vehicle and, thereafter, the victim did not return and the victim is still traceless. Considering the allegation, made against the petitioners, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) SA/- U √ T √