Purushotam Kumar @ Purushotam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62166 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-197 Year-2022 Thana- PATORI District- Samastipur ====================================================== PURUSHOTAM KUMAR @ PURUSHOTAM Son of Manoj Ray Resident of Village - Baghara, P.O. and P.S.- Mohanpur (Patori), District - Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Santosh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 10-01-2023 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Shahpur Patori P.S. Case No.197 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner with the help of co-accused persons, named in the FIR, is said to have kidnapped the daughter of the informant for the purpose of marriage.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the occurrence took place on 25.05.2022, but the FIR was lodged on 29.05.2022 without

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62166 of 2022(2) dt.10-01-2023 2/2 giving any explanation for delay which creates a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is general and omnibus. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by submitting that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Considering the fact that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) S.KUMAR/- U T