Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28510/2017rejected

Pratyam Kumar @ Pratyam v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-19Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28510 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -215 Year- 2017 Thana -SUPAUL District- SUPAUL ======================================================

1. Pratyam Kumar @ Pratyam Son of Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Yadav, Resident of Village- Sisauni, Police Station- Kishanpur, District- Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Brajendra Nath Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-08-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Supaul P.S. case No. 215 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant, father of the victim, alleged that petitioner and Ajit were living in his lodge and when he asked them to vacate the lodge they along with their friend, Baiju Paswan, came and threatened the informant of dire consequences. They also threatened to kill his son, Ujjwal Kumar. It is further alleged that on 21.04.2017 at about 5.30 A.M. in the morning his son had gone to purchase paper from station but he did not return. The informant came to know that in between Mahabir Chowk and station some criminal kidnapped his son on a Scorpio vehicle.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28510 of 2017 (3) dt.19-08-2017 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 21.04.2017 itself the victim was recovered. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case on account of dispute for living in the lodge. The informant did not complain about the threatening given by the petitioner and others. In fact the victim was not kidnapped but from perusal of the FIR and the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C., it appears that petitioner and his friend, Ajit, kidnapped the victim and left him in a lonely place after assaulting him.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T