Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22565/2015rejected

Rinku Devi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2015-09-18Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22565 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3 Year- 2015 Thana -TISIAUTA District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Rinku Devi W/o Sunil Sahani, aged about 25 years Resident of Village Chapata, P.S. Tisiauta, District Vaishali.

2. Laxmi Sahani S/o Jagat Sahani, aged about 45 years Resident of Village Usrar, P.S. Tisiauta, District Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 18-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

In this application for anticipatory bail the petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 363/365 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, Krishna Kumar aged about 10 years a minor son of the informant was taken away by the petitioners and thereafter he was made traceless.

Submission is of false implication. The petitioners have got no criminal antecedent and the informant has got no son. Petitioner's sister daughter Sima Devi filed a case regarding demand of dowry against Shiv Chandra Sahani and others and to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22565 of 2015 (3) dt.18-09-2015 2/2 make undue pressure upon the petitioners, this case has been got filed through Pattidar of said Shiv Chandra Sahni, to which learned A.P.P. opposes by submitting that the informant has adopted the son of Pramila Devi which is evident from para-11 of the case diary, and in para 6 and 7, witnesses have also stated the name of the petitioners.

Considering the fact that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and the abducted boy has still not been recovered and investigation is going on and as such finding it not to be a fit case for pre-arrest bail, accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) sushma/- U