Patna High CourtCR. MISC./55398/2021rejected

Aman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2022-04-06Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55398 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2021 Thana- BRAHMPURA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== AMAN KUMAR SON OF ARUN SAH R/O VILLAGE- BARMANIYA, P.S.- CHAKIYA, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN (MOHIHARI), AT PRESENT R/O - BRAHMPURA, LAXMI CHOWK, P.S.- BRAHMPURA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raju Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Brahmpura P.S. Case No. 58 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The daughter of the informant is said to have been abducted.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. rather the F.I.R. has been registered against unknown and merely on the basis of suspicion, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55398 of 2021(3) dt.06-04-2022 2/2 petitioner has been made accused in this case. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 08.03.2021. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that during the investigation, it has come that the victim has been found with the petitioner but she is still traceless, this fact has clearly mentioned in paragraphs 38, 91 and 92 of the case diary. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarge on bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) brajesh/- U T