Kartikey Kumar @ Kartik Singh @ Katrikey Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1744 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -859 Year- 2014 Thana -BIHTA District- PATNA ====================================================== Kartikey Kumar @ Kartik Singh @ Katrikey Kumar, S/O Late Jagat Prasad Singh, Resident of Sheonar, P.S. - Mokama, Dist - Patna; presently residing at Flat No. 202, Tufail Residency, near Hem Plaza, Frazer Road, P.S. - Kotwali, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Indra Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 16-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 363, 364, 365 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The witnesses in the case diary have supported the allegation of kidnapping of the uncle of the informant by coaccused Anant Singh and Bantu Singh along with his 16 associates.

Learned A.P.P. has submitted that on recovery of the victim Rajiv Ranjan, he has given statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. describing in detail the manner in which he was kidnapped and he has fully described the role played by the petitioner in the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1744 of 2017 (5) dt.16-02-2017 2/2 aforesaid kidnapping.

The statement of victim Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Raju Singh has been annexed as Annexure-2. From perusal of the aforesaid statement, it appears that he has taken the name of the petitioner and fully described the role played by him during his kidnapping by the accused persons. It is mentioned in paragraph-3 of the bail petition that the petitioner is accused in three other cases.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below and make prayer for regular bail which shall be considered by the court below in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T