Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44764 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2024 Thana- BHAGWAN BAZAR District- Saran ====================================================== Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Rai S/O Triloki Rai R/O Village- Jantola,PSRevilganj, Distt-Saran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 13-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case No. 134 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons have enticed away minor daughter of the sister-in-law of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is false and fabricated. The petitioner and victim had love affair in between them and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44764 of 2025(5) dt.13-10-2025 2/2 the victim has also recorded her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that she went to Delhi on her own will and started living with the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2024 and has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of kidnapping the victim. It is further submitted that the trial is in progress and three witnesses have already been examined in this case. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence as also present stage of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of two months. However, if the trial is not concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production, the petitioner will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T