Godel Sahni @ Ram Pukar Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6029 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2013 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== GODEL SAHNI @ RAM PUKAR SAHNI SON OF BHOLA SAHNI R/O VILLAGE- MAJHAURA, P.S.- PIPRAHI, DISTRICT- SHEOHAR. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 22-06-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual court proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of resumption of normal court proceeding. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 218 of 2013 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 363, 366 (A), 376, 498 (A), 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case as alleged in the First Information Report is that the accused persons including the petitioner forcibly abducted the daughter of the informant in a Bolero Jeep two months ago in the night and sold to one Bablu

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6029 of 2021(4) dt.22-06-2021 2/3 Sahni with bad intention where he forcibly put vermilion in her head and established physical relation with her. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the first alleged date of occurrence i.e. the date of kidnapping of the daughter by the accused persons is two months ago from the date of filing of the complaint petition. He submits that as per the FIR, there is a land dispute in between the informant and the accused no. 1 to 6, who are the brother and nephew of the informant and the present petitioner happened to be the brother-inlaw of the accused No. 4 and also driver of the said vehicle, therefore he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

He submits that for the commission of said offence Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2014 was commenced in which the accused persons, who were facing trial have been acquitted. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para 3 of the bail application and has been languishing in custody since 24.06.2020. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail petition. Considering the facts aforesaid, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6029 of 2021(4) dt.22-06-2021 3/3 P.S. Case No. 218 of 2013.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) GAURAV S./- U T