Himanshu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.327 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -81 Year- 2016 Thana -DHARHARA District- MUNGER ====================================================== Himanshu Kumar Son of Chilmili Yadav Resident of Village- Sri Rampur, Police Station- Akbar Nagar, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Aditya Narayan Singh 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 10-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dharahra P.S. Case o. 81 of 2016 registered under Sections- 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant has alleged that her daughter was married with Gaurav Kumar. Few days after marriage her daughter returned to Naihar, then her son-in-law came to her house and took away his wife Chanda and Sali Binita on assurance that her both daughters would return within 2/3 days. However, they did not return. Informant suspects that they have been killed by Gaurav Kumar along with her parents.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.327 of 2017 (4) dt.10-02-2017 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no concern either with the alleged occurrence or with co-accused Gaurav Kumar. Save and except confessional statement of Gaurav Kumar, there is no material against this petitioner.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner's name has come as associate of Gaurav Kumar. Charge-sheet has already been submitted against co-accused persons under sections 364/376(G)/302/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and the submissions advanced on behalf of the State, I do not feel inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail is, therefore, rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) Manish/- U T