Dina Nath Sah And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23610 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -124 Year- 2014 Thana -SIDHWALIA District- GOPALGANJ ======================================================
1. Dina Nath Sah.
2. Raj Nath Sah. Both sons of Late Mewa Sah.
3. Anirudh Sah @ Anrudh Sah @ Anirudh Kamal Sah
4. Arun Sah @ Arun Kumar Sah Both sons of Ram Nath Sah
5. Raju Sah son of Baijanath Sah.
6. Arjun Sah
7. Srikant Sah @ Srikanta Sah Both sons of Late Laxmi Sah. All resident of village- Surahiya, Police Station- Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.Dayal(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in Sidhwalia P.S.Case No. 124/2014 instituted under Sections 363,365 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of , C.J.M., Gopalganj.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that at about 9.30 A.M. on 21.10.2014 Ram Chandra Sah, husband of the informant had gone to do pairvi of his case pending in the Civil Court, Gopalganj. Thereafter he has not returned to his house. The informant suspected that the petitioners had kidnapped him. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23610 of 2015 (3) dt.16-09-2015 2/2 that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case due to land dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that on earlier occasion also the informant has instituted two more cases upon the petitioners. It is also pointed out that in course of trial of earlier cases the informant, who is common in both cases, has retracted from his statement, which is evident from Annexure 2 to the present application.
On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the victim of the present case is still traceless. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and the same is rejected. Any how, if the petitioners surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks and pray for regular bail, same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.
(Sudhir Singh, J) singh/- U T