Dinesh Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24036 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -88 Year- 2014 Thana -NARHAT District- NAWADA ====================================================== Dinesh Prasad Son of Bholi Mahto Resident of village - Badalpur, P.S. Narhat, District - Nawada .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Narhat P.S. Case No. 88 of 2014 for the offences instituted under Sections 120B/364/302/201 of the I.P.C.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that informant's son (the victim) had been carried by Radhey Prasad to Kohlapur to do work of labour but the son of the informant was sent back to his home with the Phuphera brother of the informant, namely, Dinesh Prasad (the petitioner) and Dinesh Prasad disclosed that his son has been got down by T.T.E. at Dawn Station and he will return within 2-4 days. But when the informant's son did not return with the petitioner, he went to Kolhapr and asked about his son from Radhey Prasad, Sanjay Prasad and Dinesh Prasad who did not say

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24036 of 2015 (3) dt.02-09-2015 P2/3 anything about his son rather Dinesh Prasad told that he has given in writing to Railway department and if his son is traced, he will come with him. The informant suspected that the accused persons kidnapped or killed his son and disappeared his dead-body and to save themselves they lodged Sanha in the Railways Police. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion for the reason that the victim has been kidnapped. The petitioner and his wife were travelling in the same train but in different coaches. Ultimately, the victim did not reach his native village and hence the present case was instituted. It is further submitted that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner for kidnapping the victim. Merely on suspicion petitioner is named in F.I.R On behalf of the State it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named, be released on bail in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from today in connection with Narhat P.S. Case No. 88/2014 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24036 of 2015 (3) dt.02-09-2015 P3/3 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Saif/- U T