Pramod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35232 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-454 Year-2021 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka ====================================================== Pramod Kumar Son Of Bulaki Resident Of Village- Kathara, P.S.- Dhankund, District- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 18-10-2022 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Rajoun P.S. Case No. 454 of 2021 lodged under Section 366(A) of the I.P.C.

As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioner is to kidnap the daughter of the informant for the purpose of marriage.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He further submits that the petitioner and the victim was in love and it is due to this reason, the victim become agree to go with him. Learned counsel submits that the victim girl has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35232 of 2022(3) dt.18-10-2022 2/2 recovered and presently residing with her family. Petitioner is in custody since 23.11.2021 having clean antecedent. He also submits that petitioner is a student and if he shall not be released, his entire career shall be ruined.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that it is true that the kidnapped girl was recovered but in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has categorically stated that she was confined for about 8 days by the petitioner.

Upon the specific query that whether charge has been framed in this case or not, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date charge has not been framed. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present, therefore, his bail petition is hereby rejected. However, liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail 2 months after framing of charge.

The Trial Court shall release the petitioner on bail imposing conditions so that he may not evade during trial. With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) sadique/- U T