Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30432 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-946 Year-2023 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Manish Kumar S/o- Jai Krishna Yadav Village- Manpur Godiyari W.No-2, PsMadhepura Dist- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Manjeet Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 120B, 504 and 506 of the IPC in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No.946 of 2023.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that his minor daughter aged about 16 years disappeared from the house on 23.07.2023 and later he came to know that the accused persons were involved in the occurrence and they got his minor daughter married to Bittu Kumar who was married
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30432 of 2024(3) dt.20-07-2024 2/3 from before.
4. The learned counsel submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the date of occurrence is 23.07.2023 and the FIR came to be instituted on 13.09.2023 i.e. after a delay of more than 50 days which cast an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that petitioner is not related to Bittu, but then is known to him, it is also submitted that the victim and Bittu were in love and the victim eloped and thereafter married Bittu, but when the first wife of Bittu started opposing the marriage, the present false case came to be instituted and that perhaps explains why no plausible explanation has been given in the FIR for instituting the delayed FIR.
5. The learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30432 of 2024(3) dt.20-07-2024 3/3 in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No.946 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Prakash Narayan U T