Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8415/2021bail rejected

Omkar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2021-07-19Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8415 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-205 Year-2020 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada ====================================================== OMKAR KUMAR S/O SHIVBALAK CHAUHAN R/O VILLAGE-LOHRA, P.S-MUFASSIL, DISTRICT-NAWADA.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, A.P.P.

For the Informant :

Mr. Arjun Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 19-07-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant through video conferencing.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of regular bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case no. 205 of 2020 registered under sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation in the F.I.R., the minor daughter of the informant who had gone out late in the night to ease herself, disappeared. It is stated by the informant that on enquiry it transpired that the petitioner had kidnapped her. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations as levelled in the F.I.R. are false and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8415 of 2021(3) dt.19-07-2021 2/2 concocted. The informant has given incorrect age of his daughter. She is a major and she had gone with the petitioner out of her own volition. She has returned safely. No overt act has been alleged. The petitioner is in custody since 19.8.2020 and has no criminal antecedent.

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State who submits that the allegation of kidnapping of the minor daughter of the informant by the petitioner is supported by the statement of the minor victim under section 164 Cr.P.C..

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations as levelled in the F.I.R. together with the contents of the statement of the minor victim under section 164 Cr.P.C., the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U T