Mithu Kumar @ Mithlesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62931 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2017 Thana- JADIA District- Supaul ====================================================== MITHU KUMAR @ MITHLESH KUMAR @ MITHILESH KUMAR YADAV S/oJitendra Yadav R/o Village-Laxmania,ward No.8, P.S.Jadia,Distt.- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Arun For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sri Ashok Kumar Singh 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 06-05-2019 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.
Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Jadia P.S. Case No. 142 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. The matter is of love affair. The informant is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence. Moreover, the present first information report has been lodged after 10 days of the alleged occurrence without there being any plausible explanation for the delay.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62931 of 2018(6) dt.06-05-2019 2/2 Petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report and there is specific allegation of kidnapping. The victim girl is minor and is still traceless. He, therefore, submits that petitioner does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T