Bir Chandra Kumar @ Virchandra @ Viru And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30477 of 2017 (3) dt.24-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30477 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -5 Year- 2017 Thana -PATORI District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Bir Chandra Kumar @ Virchandra @ Viru, Son of Gama Rai, Resident of Village- Chandpur, P.S. Patori, District- Samastipur.

2. Vikash Kumar, Son of Hare Kishun Ray, Resident of VillageBahangama, P.S. Desri, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Bachan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners apprehend arrest in Patori P.S. Case No. 05 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Sections-363, 366A, 504/34 of the Indian Penal.

It is alleged in the written report that on the date of occurrence, minor daughter of the informant Ranjan Kumari, aged about 13 years had gone to school but she did not return. The informant made search and learnt by the villagers that they had seen the petitioners with other accused persons taking away the daughter of informant on a vehicle by force. The daughter of the informant has been recovered and her statement u/S 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, which is available at paragraph-66 of the case diary wherein she has specifically levelled allegation of overt act against both these

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30477 of 2017 (3) dt.24-07-2017 petitioners.

In such circumstances, considering the statement of victime girl recorded u/S 164 Cr.P.C. in which she levelled specific allegation of overt act against these petitioners in kidnapping, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

The petitioners are directed to surrender in the court below within four weeks from today and seek regular bail which will be considered by the court below and disposed off on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Sanjay Priya, J) A.K.V./- U T