Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42843/2024rejected

Manjay Kumar Ray @ Manjay @ Avinash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-11-29Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42843 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2024 Thana- MUSRIGHRARI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Manjay Kumar Ray @ Manjay @ Avinash Kumar Son Of Shivji Ray @ Shivjee Ray Village- Rahimpur Rudauli, P.S.- Samastipur Muffasil, Distt.- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mahendra Pratap, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Gulnar Begum, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 29-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Musrigharari P.S Case No. 04 of 2024 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, it is a case of kidnapping of the daughter of the informant on the pretext of marriage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and the victim was in love affair and both were willing to marry, since the informant is against their relationship, the victim left her house with her own choice and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42843 of 2024(3) dt.29-11-2024 2/2 fled away with the petitioner.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. From perusal of the F.I.R., impugned order, case diary and statement of victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C it appears that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner, victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C stated regarding her abduction by the petitioner and alleged that she was sexually harassed by the petitioner against her will.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Mayank/- U T