Ravish Jaiswal @ Lol Kumar @ Ravish Kr. Jaiswal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28939 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2015 Thana- BUXAR MUFFSIL District- Buxar ====================================================== RAVISH JAISWAL @ LOL KUMAR @ RAVISH KR. JAISWAL S/o Hiralal Jaiswal Resident of Village-Chousa Bazar (Near Durga Temple), P.S.-Chausa, District-Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akshyalal Pandia, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 27-01-2021 Heard Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Akshyalal Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Buxar (Muffasil) Police Station Case No. 331 of 2015, disclosing offences under Sections 363, 366(A), 372 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner, on the basis of the First Information Report is that daughter of the informant has been abducted by the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and there is unexplained delay of three months in lodging the FIR.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28939 of 2020(3) dt.27-01-2021 2/2 Learned counsel next submits that both the parties have compromised their dispute, which would be evident from a joint petition annexed at Annexure-2 of this application. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that as per specific allegation, petitioner had allured the minor daughter of the informant for the purpose of marriage and the girl is still traceless. Learned counsel next submits that petitioner has moved this Court for anticipatory bail application after lapse of five years.

Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation and the fact that petitioner has moved this Court for anticipatory bail after lapse of five years, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail and the same is hereby rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) sanjeev/- U T