Sukhdev Mahto @ Sugdeo Mahto @ Sukdeo Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35693 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2021 Thana- SIKANDRA District- Jamui ====================================================== Sukhdev Mahto @ Sugdeo Mahto @ Sukdeo Mahto Son Of Saryug Mahto R/O- Vill- Kurhadih, P.S.- Sikandra, Dist.- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 21-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the F.I.R., prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29.05.2021 the minor daughter of the informant went missing. On the next date he came tk know from his brother that his daughter was seen with Manjesh Kumar @ Munna Kumar alongwith three to four unknown persons, who had abducted her with the intention of forceful marriage.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35693 of 2022(2) dt.21-11-2022 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that petitioner is the father of a name accused Manjesh Kumar and there is no role attributed against the petitioner. He further submits that confessional statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has not supported the prosecution case. He submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner, let the above named petitioner in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Sikandra P.S. Case No. 142/2021, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T