Bindeshwar Prasad And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.52724 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -25 Year- 2015 Thana -SHEOHAR District- SHEOHAR ======================================================
1. Bindeshwar Prasad, son of Late Banshi Lal Chaudhary
2. Raju Prasad @ Raju Chaudhary, son of Bindeshwar Prasad Both R/o village - Sarpaniya, P.S. - Dhaka, District - East Champaran at Motihari. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 30-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Sheohar P.S. Case No. 25 of 2015 registered under Section 365, 366 & 366-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been contended that the petitioners are father and younger brother respectively of accused Pintu Kumar with whom the daughter of the informant eloped. The alleged incident took place on 26th January, 2015, but the FIR was registered belatedly on 02.02.2015 in a planned manner and all the family members of Pintu Kumar have been falsely implicated in his case. It is further contended that the daughter of the informant is major and she has performed marriage before the Registrar of Marriages at New Delhi with Pintu Kumar, the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52724 of 2015 (2) dt.30-01-2016 2 / 2 son of petitioner no. 1. The victim and her husband have filed writ petition before the Delhi High Court for getting protection against the threat extended by her family members at Delhi vide W.P. (Crl.) No. 1515 of 2015 which has been disposed of on 27.07.2015 with a direction to concerned police officer of Delhi to give proper protection to the informant's daughter and her husband.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the application for grant of bail to the petitioners. He has contended that the parents are concerned with the welfare of the victim. The victim has yet not been produced either before the police or before the Court. Be that as it may, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners, who are in custody since 5.6.2015, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar in connection with Sheohar P.S. Case No. 25 of 2015.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/- U T