Sonal Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh @ Gautam @ Sunil Kumar @ Sunal Kumar Singh @ Sunal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29097 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2019 Thana- DESARI District- Vaishali ====================================================== Sonal Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh @ Gautam @ Sunil Kumar @ Sunal Kumar Singh @ Sunal Kumar, S/o Arun Kumar Singh, Resident of VillageRampur Kumharkol, P.S.-Desari (Sahadei O.P), District-Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-12-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State through Video Conferencing.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 498/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, all the accused persons including this petitioner abducted the informant's wife and daughter.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court. It is stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition that petitioner has got clean antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29097 of 2020(2) dt.03-12-2020 2/3 It appears that earlier, the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide Annexure-1 order dated 05.11.2019 and after a lapse of 1 year, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that, subsequently, other similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court and, in support of the same, he has annexed, here, some bail orders of this Hon'ble Court.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that from perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that petitioner is named in F.I.R. and alleged to have committed the abduction of the informant's wife and daughter, the fact, which has been supported by the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C and case of petitioner is distinguishable from those who have been granted bail in as much as this petitioner played main role in the abduction. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that earlier, the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected and this petitioner has played the main role in the abduction of the informant wife and daughter, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29097 of 2020(2) dt.03-12-2020 3/3 petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Ankit/- U T