Chandan Yadav @ Chandan Kumar And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52206 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -92 Year- 2014 Thana -GOH District- AURANGABAD ======================================================

1. Chandan Yadav @ Chandan Kumar Son of Shiv Sharan Yadav

2. Sunil Kumar Son of Siddheshwar Yadav Both resident of village - Bhawanipur, Police Station - Goh, District - Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : M/s Dinu Singh, Shiw Kumar Prabhakar, Rajesh Kr. Singh and Mayank Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-05-2015 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Goh P.S.Case No. 92 of 2014 instituted under Sections 366(A), 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Daudnagar, Aurangabad.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners , the informant and the State.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 13.8.2014 at 8 a.m, the victim Rekha Kumari aged about 16 years went for tuitions at Goh but she did not return till 1 p.m in her house and on 14.8.2014 the informant came to know from one Amrita Kumari that Rekha Kumari has been seen at Gaya and it has also

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52206 of 2014 (3) dt.07-05-2015 2/2 came that Sunil Kumar and Chandan Kumar have taken her on motor cycle and they have solemnized her marriage with Deonath Kumar.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that whatever main allegation is there i.e. against one Deonath Kumar. So far as petitioners are concerned, they are said to be associated with the said Deonathj Kumar The petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case.

On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the victim girl in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement alleged that the petitioners have also committed rape upon her. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. However, if the petitioners surrender in the court below within a period of three weeks and seeks regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.

(Sudhir Singh, J) singh/- U T