Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Shah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43424 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2021 Thana- KHANPURA District- Samastipur ====================================================== VIKASH KUMAR @ VIKASH KUMAR SHAH Son of Late Mahendra Sah Resident of Village - Ranjitpur, P.S. - Khanpur, District - Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Amit Kumar Anand, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 08-04-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Khanpura P.S. Case No. 17 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 (A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Informant, Ramnath Rai is maternal uncle of Anjali Kumari aged about 15 years. As per FIR, the present petitioner along with other named accused persons kidnapped the minor niece of the informant. There was previous land dispute between accused persons and the informant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43424 of 2021(2) dt.08-04-2022 2/2 to land dispute the petitioner has falsely been implicated. The statement of victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has been annexed as Annexure-2. The age of the victim was assessed as 15 years. She has stated that she resides in Ranjitpur in the house of her maternal grandmother. On 21.01.2021, the present petitioner forcibly got her seated on motorcycle and brought her in Darbhanga and kept in a rented house for about 20 days. The victim has supported the entire occurrence and named the present petitioner, as such, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.
Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T