Kailash Baitha And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36508 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -75 Year- 2016 Thana -RIGA District- SITAMARHI ======================================================

1. Kailash Baitha Son of Suryadev Baitha

2. Champa Devi wife of Kailash Baitha, Both resident of village - Chainpura, P.S. Riga, District - Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Roy, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-01-2017 The application filed on behalf of petitioner No.2 has been dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 1.9.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner No.1 is apprehending his arrest in Riga P.S. case No.75 of 2016 registered under Sections 363 and 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

Allegation is that the accused persons including the petitioner took away the sister of the informant on tempo with intention to marry.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36508 of 2016 (4) dt.13-01-2017 2/2 tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The victim has eloped with co-accused, namely, Vikki Kumar. There is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in the present case. Merely on suspicion he has been made accused.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and the victim is still traceless. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner No.1. Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Anyhow if the petitioner No.1 surrenders in the court below within a period of six weeks from today, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. If possible, the same shall be disposed of on the same day. (Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- U T