Md. Sarif Ansari @ Md. Sarif v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32121 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2002 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Md. SARIF ANSARI @ Md. SARIF SON OF AINUL HAQUE Resident of Village- Bhawanipur, P.S.- Adapur (Nakardev), District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prateek Tandon, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 21-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kanti P.S. Case No.149/2002, registered for the offence punishable u/s 363, 365, 366 of the IPC.

3.

Allegation against the petitioner that he kidnapped the wife and three children of informant, by taking informant in confidence that he will take them to meet ill father-in-law of informant.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The victim has been recovered and there is contradiction in her statement recorded

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32121 of 2023(2) dt.21-07-2023 2/2 u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that there is no allegation of sexual exploitation against the petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the statement of the victim was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., in which, she has supported the prosecution case. F.I.R. was lodged in the year, 2022 and after issuance of the warrant, the petitioner moved for anticipatory bail in the year, 2023, after a long delay.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that there is delay in filing of the bail application, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for grant of bail on his behalf is rejected. 7.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T