Sandelal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41943 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2022 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada ====================================================== Sandelal Kumar Son of Ram Swarup Das, Resident of Village - Kendua Tola, gosai Bigha, P.s.- Sirdala, Distt.- Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pushpa Sinha, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-11-2022 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sirdala P.S. Case No. 46 of 2022, lodged under Sections 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, the kidnapping of victim girl has alleged to be made by the petitioner and others. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as the alleged date of occurrence is of 11.02.2022, F.I.R. has been lodged on 12.02.2022, matter was sent before the A.C.J.M. on 14.02.2022 and on 15.02.2022 the alleged victim girl was recovered. He further submits that the Trial Court was little bit

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41943 of 2022(2) dt.01-11-2022 2/2 confused and could not be reached on a certain conclusion. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is in custody since 14.02.2022, charge sheet has already been filed and antecedent of petitioner is clean.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that from the Statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., Court may not reached on any conclusion but it is crystal clear that at the instance of present petitioner the victim girl become unconscious and, thereafter, the petitioner eloped with the said victim girl.

In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present, but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail after two months of framing of charge and upon move for bail the Trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on bail imposing its own conditions so that he may not evade his appearance during trial. With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) ritik/- U T