Dilip Mehta @ Dilip Kumar Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.929 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2019 Thana- BHAPTIAHI District- Supaul ====================================================== DILIP MEHTA @ DILIP KUMAR MEHTA son of Vechu Mehta Resident of Village- Narpatpatti, P.S.- Ratanpura, District- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 01-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of resumption of normal court proceeding. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 498/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Six named accused persons are said to have abducted the daughter of the informant and her friend from her house while both were sleeping with an intention to solemnize marriage by a scorpio vehicle and the petitioner was sitting in the said vehicle.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.929 of 2021(2) dt.01-03-2021 2/2 that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He is neither named in the F.I.R. nor was apprehended on the spot. No incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious physical possession. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is nothing in the record indicating the complicity of the petitioner in the occurrence. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that no overt act has attributed against him by the petitioner. The petitioner has been languishing in custody since 17.09.2020. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail petition.

Considering the facts aforesaid, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul in connection with Bhaptiyahi P.S. Case No.51 of 2019.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T