Wakil Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4613 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-159 Year-2020 Thana- BARGAINIA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== WAKIL SAHNI Son of LAKHAN SAHNI Resident of Village - Pachtaki, P.S. - Bairganiya, District - Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate Mr. Hans Lal Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 14-12-2021 Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Renu Kumari, learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Bairganiya P.S. Case No. 159 of 2020 dated 01.09.2020 instituted for the offences under Sections 363, 366A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation against the petitioner and others is of having abducted the minor daughter of the informant. Later, the daughter of the informant was brought to his house with a threat that if the matter is reported to the police, the informant shall be made accused in a false case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the victim and Shashi Ranjan, who is the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4613 of 2021(3) dt.14-12-2021 2/2 nephew of the petitioner were on good terms. For reasons which are not explicable and known to the petitioner, he has been made accused in this case. However, from the 164 statement of the victim girl, it appears that the petitioner and two others had abducted her for a short while and she was taken to the house of Shashi Ranjan, the nephew of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in defence has submitted that the relationship between the two families has soured and the present litigation is only because of the strained relationship between the parties. However, in view of the statement made in 164 Cr.P.C. by the victim girl, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders before the court below and seeks bail, his application shall be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by the fact that the present petition on his behalf has not been entertained.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) krishna/- U T