Kailash Ram And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23764 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -340 Year- 2015 Thana -KUDHNI District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================
1. Kailash Ram S/o late Sukhit Ram
2. Vikram Kumar S/o Kailash Ram Both are R/o Village- Keshrama Bharos Chowk, P.S. Kudhni (Fakuli O.P.) District Muzaffapur. .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Ms. Sucheta Yadav, APP.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 23-09-2016 Heard both sides.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Kudhni (Fakuli O.P.) P.S. Case No. 340 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The mother of the victim Rakesh Kumar alleged that Ramchander Ram, Kamleshwar, Santosh Kumar, Fuldev Ram, Kailash Ram and Vikram Singh, they all came to her house assaulted her son Rakesh Kumar and forcibly took him away and her son is still traceless.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Rakesh Kumar was found in compromising position with Anjali Kumari and the family members of Anjali Kumari brutally assaulted him
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23764 of 2016 (4) dt.23-09-2016 2/2 thereafter Rakesh Kumar is still traceless. The petitioners are not the family members of Anjali Kumari and they have falsely been implicated in the case on account of village politics. The witnesses have stated the same facts that Rakesh Kumar was found with Anjali Kumari and that is why her family members assaulted Rakesh Kumar who is still traceless.
It appears that the informant has named the petitioners along with two other persons and made specific allegation that firstly the petitioners and others brutally assaulted Rakesh Kumar and took him out from his house who is still traceless. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T