Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4180/2017rejected

Mithilesh Yadav @ Mithilesh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-04-04Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4180 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -183 Year- 2016 Thana -BARHARA District- PURNIA ======================================================

1. MITHILESH YADAV @ MITHILESH KUMAR YADAV Son of Shambhu Yadav resident of Village- Harirahi, P.S. Barhara, DistrictPurnea. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Anita Kumari Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 04-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Barhara P.S.Case No. 183 of 2016 registered for offences punishable under Sections 364/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on vide order dated 13.09.2016 Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 Arms Act were also added.

The allegation upon the petitioner is of kidnapping the son of the informant.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false and concocted and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4180 of 2017 (4) dt.04-04-2017 2/2 village politics. It is also submitted that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner was not present in the village. The petitioner has been implicated by the police without any basis on suspicion. However, learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer of bail with submission that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific allegation.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is rejected. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Sudha/- U T