Raja Ram Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60763 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-311 Year-2021 Thana- SURSAND District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1.

Raja Ram Das S/o Late Bhadai Das Resident of Ward No. 6, Sursand Nagar Panchayat, P.O. - Sursand, P.S. - Sursand, District - Sitamarhi. 2.

Foolbadni Devi Wife of Raja Ram Das Resident of Ward No. 6, Sursand Nagar Panchayat, P.O. - Sursand, P.S. - Sursand, District - Sitamarhi. 3.

Vikash Kumar S/o Raja Ram Das Resident of Ward No. 6, Sursand Nagar Panchayat, P.O. - Sursand, P.S. - Sursand, District - Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 28-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged against the petitioners that they have abducted the minor daughter of the informant along with other accused persons.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have falsely been implicated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60763 of 2021(3) dt.28-06-2022 2/2 in this case. The victim was in love with the son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 namely Amar Kumar and she of her own eloped with him. The petitioners have been implicated in this case only because they are parents and brother of Amar Kumar.

Learned A.P.P has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that petitioners have played active role in the abduction of the victim girl. The victim is minor and she has not been traced out as yet.

Considering the aforestated facts, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners stands rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Shageer/- U T