Durgesh Lal Harijan @ Durgesh Harijan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38230 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-440 Year-2020 Thana- KISHANGANJ District- Kishanganj ====================================================== 1.

Durgesh Lal Harijan @ Durgesh Harijan Son Of Bimal Lal Harijan R/O Village- Bosak Tola Baigan, P.S.- Terhagachh, District- Kishanganj 2.

Niraj Kumar Bosak @ Niraj Kumar Son Of Gunit Lal Bosak R/O VillageBosak Tola Baigan, P.S.- Terhagachh, District- Kishanganj 3.

Praduman Kumar Bosak @ Pradyum Son Of Mannu Lal Bosak R/O VillageBosak Tola Baigan, P.S.- Terhagachh, District- Kishanganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the learned court below.

Allegation against the petitioners is that they along with other co-accused persons are said to have abducted the daughter of the informant for marriage.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38230 of 2022(3) dt.17-02-2023 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. He submits that there is delay of 15 days in filing of the present FIR and there is no any explanation of it which creates creates serious doubt about the prosecution case. He further submits that petitioners have got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail application and submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in which she had supported the prosecution case. Hence, they do not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 440/2020. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T