Pradeep Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61476 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2021 Thana- RAJIVNAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== Pradeep Rai Son Of Dineshwar Rai Resident Of Village- Itwan English, Mastichak, P.S.- Dariyapur, District- Saran (CHAPRA) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Choubey Jawahar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 02-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from the date of resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rajiv Nagar P.S. Case No. 149 of 2021 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 363, 365 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, the minor daughter of the informant went missing and during investigation, the police recovered her from the house of the petitioner. The victim also named the co-accused Gautam Kumar, one of his friends who forcibly took her away and kept her confined. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61476 of 2021(4) dt.02-08-2022 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has not been named in the FIR. From the statement of the victim, it appears that she was already knowing the co-accused Gautam Kumar and went away with her. The victim has not named this petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Chage sheet has been submitted in this case and the petitioner is in custody since 29.03.2021.

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner submitting that the victim girl was recovered from the house of this petitioner.

Perused the records.

Having regard to the submission made hereinabove and considering the recovery of minor girl from the house of this petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

Accordingly, his prayer for grant of bail is rejected. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months. However, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Arun Kumar Jha, J) Gautam/- U T