Patna High CourtCR. MISC./43675/2015dismissed

Saurabh Kumar Singh @ Chhotu Singh @ Chhotu v. The State Of Bihar

2016-01-04Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43675 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -228 Year- 2013 Thana -MUNGER MUFFASIL District- MUNGER ====================================================== Saurabh Kumar Singh @ Chhotu Singh @ Chhotu son of Ramesh Singh, Resident of village- Madrauni, P.S.- Navgachhia, District- Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-01-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Munger Muffasil P.S. Case No. 228/2013, registered for the offences punishable under Section 366A, 376 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The father of the victim made allegation that his minor daughter was kidnapped by the petitioner Saurabh Kumar @ Chhotu and other accused persons namely Shampul Kumar Singh, Amandeep Kumar Singh and others participated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim did not name the petitioner in her statement made before the police as well as in her statement under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. It is submitted that Shampul Kumar and others and Bipul Kumar Singh have already been granted anticipatory bail vide

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43675 of 2015 (3) dt.04-01-2016 2/2 order passed in Cr. Misc. 48968/2014 and 4815/2014. It appears that the father of the victim made very specific allegation that it was the petitioner who kidnapped his minor daughter. During the course of investigation one Krishna Nand Singh also named the petitioner. The victim made her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and she also supported the factum of her kidnapping and disclosed that one person kidnapped her whom she did not identify. She also named Vikki and Sonu. The Victim is a minor girl.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T