Israil Mian @ Mohammad Esrail Miyan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40243 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2019 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== ISRAIL MIAN @ MOHAMMAD ESRAIL MIYAN S/o Manif Miyan R/o Village- Madhuban Samim Tola, P.S.- Madhuban, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shanti Bhushan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 26-03-2021 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Madhuban Police Station Case No. 278 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363/366-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner, as per the First Information Report, is that he abducted the minor daughter of the informant.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to family dispute and the victim girl is aged about 16-17 years, as per the medical board. He further submits that the petitioner is the brother-in-law of the victim girl and there was love affair

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40243 of 2020(3) dt.26-03-2021 2/2 between them.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the victim girl, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has categorically stated that she was physically abused by the petitioner and he forcibly took her to Delhi and Ludhiana and the victim girl has also disclosed her age, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as 14 years. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record and the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, at this stage. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after one year from today, if the trial does not show any progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √