Sonu Kumar @ Mukul v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44863 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2021 Thana- DANDARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== SONU KUMAR @ MUKUL Son of Shankar Singh @ Shankar Kumar Resident of Village - Tetri, P.S.- Dandari, Distt.- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pritish Kumar Lal For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-02-2023 Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dandari P.S. Case No. 85 of 2021(G.R. No. 2794 of 2021) registered for the offences punishable under Section 366(A) of the IPC. As per prosecution case, petitioner is alleged to have taken away informant's daughter by act of inducement with intention to marry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 12.09.2021 and bears no criminal antecedent. He further submits that as per FIR it is stated that on 06.09.2021 the informant's daughter left the house but FIR was lodged on 11.09.2021 and no plausible explanation has been given

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44863 of 2022(4) dt.01-02-2023 2/2 with regard to the delay. He further submits that petitioner is quite innocent and committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and refers the statement of victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C in which victim has specifically stated that petitioner has induced the victim to leave the parental house and petitioner has also made forceful relation with victim continuously for five days.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner coupled with statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C as well as material available on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. If trial is not concluded within the stipulated period of time, petitioner may renew his prayer of bail. (Alok Kumar Pandey, J) vashudha/- U T