Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28109/2014rejected

Rajeev Kumar Singh@Raju Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2015-03-30Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28109 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -111 Year- 2013 Thana -NAYAGAON District- SARAN ====================================================== RAJEEV KUMAR SINGH@RAJU SINGH .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.22387 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -111 Year- 2013 Thana -NAYAGAON District- SARAN ====================================================== Sonu Singh @ Prakash Kr. Singh .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In Cr.Misc. No.28109 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Vikram Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. P.N.Pandit (App) (In Cr.Misc. No.22387 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Javed Aslam For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B.N.Pandey(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-03-2015 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 120B and 212 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation is of kidnapping a businessman namely Sohail Hingora from Nani Daman and being kept in the house of Rajnit Singh. The petitioners were not named in the FIR, their names subsequently sprang up on the confession of co-accused

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28109 of 2014 (13) dt.30-03-2015 2/2 Ravish Kumar Singh where he stated that petitioner Rajeev Kumar Singh was given `5 lacs as loan.

Counter affidavit has been filed of behalf of the State which suggests that during investigation the petitioners have neither appeared before the CID nor before the police. Petitioners' custodial interrogation was necessary but since they were absconding hence they have been chargesheeted. This Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected in connection with Nayagaon P.S. Case No. 111 of 2013 pending in the court of learned CJM, Chapra at Saran. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Amrendra/- U T