Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28278 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-529 Year-2022 Thana- SAKRA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== MANISH KUMAR SON OF MOHAN PASWAN R/O VILLAGEMATHURAPUR MUKUND, P.S.- SAKRA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Alok Kumar Alok For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 21-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The statement of the victim which was contained in a sealed envelope opened in the open Court.

3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 364, 366 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the learned court below.

4. The prosecution case is that the wife of the informant along with her infant daughter, namely, Divya, had gone to Dubaha to meet a doctor b an auto but she did not return and the informant made ahead search at all possible places but could not find any trace of his wife and daughter.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28278 of 2023(3) dt.21-08-2023 2/2 stated at para 3 of the bail petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the statement of the victim, the name of the petitioner was kept disclosed by the victim but he stated that the two persons has taken including the petitioner for previous enmity. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the F.I.R. is lodged after delay of 4 days. There is no explanation for delay in filing of the present F.I.R.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes for prayer for bail.

7. Considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the Court below, the Court below shall pass order on the same day without being prejudiced the order passed by this Court.

9. The statement of the victim now be kept on record. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) sanjeev/- U T