Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29809/2019rejected

Hemant Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

2019-08-21Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29809 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-208 Year-2018 Thana- BUXAR INDUSTRIAL District- Buxar ====================================================== HEMANT PANDEY Son of Surendra Pandey Resident of Village- Sahopada, P.S.- Buxar (Town), District- Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 21-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Buxar (Industrial) P.S. Case No. 208 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 366(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the allegation in the FIR, the daughter of the informant was forcibly taken away by the petitioner for marriage. On recovery, the statement of the victim was got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which she has made allegations against this petitioner It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim. On her examination, no bodily injury has been found. As per the allegation in the FIR, the victim disappeared

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29809 of 2019(3) dt.21-08-2019 2/2 on 20.10.2018 however, as per her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that she was taken away on 23.10.2018, which creates doubt. Petitioner has voluntarily surrendered on 31.10.2018 and has no criminal antecedent.

The application for bail is opposed by the learned APP for the State.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

However the petitioner, if so advised my renew his prayer for bail after completion one year custody. (Partha Sarthy, J) sushma/- U T