Nageshwar Yadav @ Nageshwar Prasad And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.50667 of 2017 Arising Out of P.S. Case No. -169 Year- 2017 Thana - GHOSI District- JEHANABAD ======================================================
1. NAGESHWAR YADAV @ NAGESHWAR PRASAD, son of Late Ram Bali Yadav
2. Jaimurti Devi, wife of Sri Nageshwar Yadav, Both R/0 Vill. Doman Bigha, P.S. Ghosi (Okari OP), Distt. Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Maijorwar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar 2, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 18-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners, in the present case, are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Ghosi P.S. Case No. 169/2017 registered for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners are the parents of the boy Pankaj Kumar @ Karu. In the F.I.R. allegation is that the informant's daughter Soni Kumari, aged about 20 years, had gone to make prayer at Kali Asthan but she did not return and subsequently the informant came to know that Pankaj Kumar @ Karu had abducted Soni Kumari for the purpose of marriage. No active role or participation of these
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50667 of 2017 (2) dt.18-10-2017 2/2 petitioners has been alleged in the alleged act of abduction of Soni Kumari. It is alleged that when the informant went to tell these things to the parents of the accused Pankaj Kumar, these petitioners abused and threatened the informant by falsely implicating him in a case. Learned counsel has produced the statement made by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement she has come out with an entirely different story and has named her own uncle and one Chhotan Prasad and his son Vicky Kumar and nephew Tuntun Kumar and Anuj Kumar Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances, in case of arrest or surrender of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioners named above be enlarged on bail on their furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Mukesh Kumar Mishra, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in connection with Ghosi P.S. Case No. 169/2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Dilip, AR U T