Dara Paswan @ Shailesh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6635 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -391 Year- 2013 Thana -ARA MUFFSIL District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== DARA PASWAN @ SHAILESH PASWAN SON OF SHEO NATH PASWAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SURAUNDHA, POLICE STATION - KOILWAR, DISTRICT - BHOJPUR .... .... PETITIONER/S
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 27-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
There was family feud and on account thereof, Vimla Devi, wife of victim deserted the victim. Subsequently thereof, it has been alleged that petitioner, who happens to be brother-in-law of victim came, took away victim Meghnath on the pretext of ailment of his son. Since thereafter, Meghnath did not return whereupon father of Meghnath, namely, Sudama has filed instant prosecution case.
It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that for the misdeeds which Vimla Devi wife of victim has sustained at the hands of prosecution party, filed a complaint petition bearing Complaint Case No.10(c) of 2014 on 03.01.2014. Virtually that happens to be reason behind institution of instant case, even considering the version after so many days without any cogent as well as reliable explanation instant case has been filed.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6635 of 2015 (3) dt.27-04-2015 Furthermore, it has also been submitted that simply suspicion has been cast against the petitioner, hence it is a fit case wherein petitioner should be released on an anticipatory bail. Admittedly it happens to be a case of last seen and that being so, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have explained. Having failed on that very score did not justify the prayer made on behalf of petitioner.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) PN/- U T