Sanjay Kumar Sah And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.47943 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -237 Year- 2016 Thana -CHHATAPUR District- SUPAUL ======================================================

1. Sanjay Kumar Sah, son of Bechan Sah, &

2. Arun Sah, son of Bechan Sah, both resident of village-Ghibha, P.S.- Chhatapur, District-Supaul.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Karuna Kant Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 3/ 21-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The Petitioners seek bail in Chhatapur P.S. Case No.237 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 365 and 366 Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged that the daughter of the informant, Ranjana Devi, had gone for planting paddy seedlings in the land of the petitioners. The accused persons told her to plant seedlings till late in the night, which she refused. Thereafter, petitioner no.1, Sanjay Kumar Sah, threatened her to teach a lesson within two days. Sanjay Kumar Sah then talked with some unknown persons and asked them to come soon. The complainant further alleged that in the same night some criminals came on four-wheeler. The daughter of the complainant was alone in the house as the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47943 of 2016 (3) dt.21-12-2016 2/2 complainant had gone to Chhatapur Hospital for treatment. The complainant, on return, did not find her daughter in the house. The complainant further alleged that accused Savitri Devi had called her daughter and took her somewhere and since then her daughter is traceless.

Case Diary has been received. The statement of the victim girl is available at para 44, wherein, she has levelled specific allegation and overt act against both these petitioners. In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. also, the victim has levelled specific overt act against these petitioners of kidnapping and committing illegal act with her. The informant in her further statement in para 3 and other witnesses in para 7, 8, 9 have also disclosed the name of these petitioners in the commission of the aforesaid offence.

In view of such, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

Prayer of the petitioners for bail is rejected. (Sanjay Priya, J) JA/- U T