Patna High CourtCR. MISC./58263/2017rejected

Santosh Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2018-01-18Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.58263 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2017 Thana- RAJGIR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Santosh Chaudhary, Son of Chandra @ Srichand Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Kripa Bigha, P.S.- Rajgir, District- Nalanda.... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SRI ASHOK KUMAR SINGH ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Rajgir P. S. Case No. 105 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, the petitioner was talking to Sweta Kumari the married daughter of the informant and when Sweta Kumari went to attend call of nature, the petitioner kidnapped her on motorcycle and fled away.

Submission is of false implication and that only on suspicion the petitioner has been made accused, other coaccused Srichand Chaudhary and Sarawati Devi have been allowed pre-arrest bail vide Cr. Misc. no. 29185 of 2017 by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court. During investigation nothing has come regarding involvement of the petitioner and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58263 of 2017(3) dt.18-01-2018 2/2 further the informant has filed petition in the court below stating that she has not given the name of anyone in the first information report.

Learned APP seriously opposes the prayer of pare-arrest bail by submitting that witnesses vide paragraphs 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 40 and 41 of the case diary have supported the allegation of kidnapping by the petitioner and further when on the mobile of the petitioner call was given then one boy stated that the victim is living happily.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the materials against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T