Patna High CourtCR. MISC./69331/2024dismissed

Vivek Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-22Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69331 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-845 Year-2023 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Vivek Kumar Son of Munna Sah Resident of Village - Saitha, P.S. - Sonhan, District - Kaimur at Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Kiran Kumari Sharma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 22-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 845 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegedly, all the FIR named accused persons including the petitioner are said to have kidnapped the niece of the informant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69331 of 2024(2) dt.22-10-2024 2/2 based on concocted facts. He is not named in the FIR. During investigation, the statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has supported the prosecution case and stated against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the doctor, who examined the victim, has found her age about 17 to 19 years. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T