Danish @ Leedu @ Md. Danish @ Leedo v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32520 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -143 Year- 2015 Thana -CIVIL LINE DistrictGAYA ====================================================== DANISH @ LEEDU @ MD. DANISH @ LEEDO son of Md. Zakir Quraishi, resident of Mohalla- Nadiraganj, P.S. Civil Line, Dist- Gaya .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. Jamil Akhtar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER 17-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Civil Lines P. S. Case No. 143 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 372/34 of IPC.

Allegation against the petitioner is to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the victim has not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and she has been recovered from Dadar in the State of Maharastra and she has not raised any alarm during journey from Gaya to Mumbai. The petitioner has been in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32520 of 2015 (2) dt.17-08-2015 2/2 custody since 23.4.2015 having no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the State submits that main allegation is against the petitioner and he handed over the victim to another person who took away the minor girl to Mumbai. Victim has raised alarm at the station and the police has recovered the victim girl and after investigation charge-sheet has already been submitted and the case has been found true. The victim has also been examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has also supported the prosecution case.

Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve bail at this stage. His prayer for bail is rejected.

(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) Kanchan/- U T