Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37983 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-486 Year-2018 Thana- KANTI THARMAL POWER DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR S/o Subodh Singh R/o village- Panapur Kariyat, P.O.- Panapur Kariyat, P.S.- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shashi Bhushan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 14-08-2019 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Kanti (Panapur O.P.) P.S. Case No. 486/2018, instituted for offences under Section(s) 364/364(A)/384/386 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the written report that on the date of occurrence son of informant was sitting at his door. In the meantime petitioner along with Lala Kumar and Deepak Kumar and 4-5 other persons came at her door and forcibly took her son in four wheeler. Thereafter co-accused Lala Kumar called on the mobile phone of informant and demanded Rs. 20,000/- as ransom and gave threat to kill her son if aforesaid amount is not given.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37983 of 2019(4) dt.14-08-2019 2/2 Case diary has been received.

Learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that victim boy has not been recovered. In para 20 of case diary there is mention of C.D.R. from which it appears that petitioner had called on the mobile phone of informant several times. Informant in her further statement has supported the allegation levelled against this petitioner of forcibly taking away her son. Son of informant is still traceless.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of petitioner is rejected. Petitioner is in custody since 22.11.2018.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make efforts to conclude the same within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Petitioner is given liberty to renew prayer for bail in the event trial is not concluded within aforesaid period. (Sanjay Priya, J) rakhi/- U T