← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./33830/2017rejected

Devendra Singh @ Devendra Narayan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-19Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33830 of 2017 (3) dt.19-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33830 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -298 Year- 2017 Thana -SAHARSA District- SAHARSA ======================================================

1. Devendra Singh @ Devendra Narayan Singh Son of Late Surendra Singh, R/o Village- Kailashpuri, Ward No. 34, P.S.- Saharsa, District- Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 19-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP.

Shakuntala Devi along with her son, Saksham and daughter, Sakshi Kumari aged about eight years gone missing since 29.03.2017. Furthermore, it has also been disclosed in the written report that daughter of petitioner, Arti Singh was the tutor of those children who along with her brother Sumit Kumar were seen talking by the side of vehicle parked. On being suspicious over their conduct, informant, the husband of Shakuntala Devi, father of Saksham and Sakshi gone to the place of petitioner where he found all of them absconding.

From the case diary, the statement of brother-in-law of Sumit Kumar incorporated under para-61, where the Investigating Officer had gone after tracing out the call details, who had

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33830 of 2017 (3) dt.19-08-2017 disclosed that his wife had talked with Sumit Kumar but for the present, location of Sumit along with victim is not known to him. Petitioner is the father of Sumit Kumar. The victim is yet to be recovered. Unless and until, victim is recovered and her statement is recorded, complicity of the petitioner could not be ascertained. That being so, prayer for bail is rejected.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) perwez U T