Magnu Singh @ Magnu Kumar Singh @ Manganu Kumar Singh @Manganu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65655 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2021 Thana- SAHARGHAT District- Madhubani ====================================================== MAGNU SINGH @ MAGNU KUMAR SINGH @ MANGANU KUMAR SINGH @MANGANU SINGH S/o Jeewachh Singh R/v- Pakarsham, P.S.- Saharghat, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gagan Deo Yadav, Adv.

Mr.Ravi Prakash, Adv.

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Amit Kumar Rakesh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Saharghat P.S. Case No.15 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable u/s 363, 366(A), 34 of the IPC.

Allegedly, the F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioner enticed away the minor daughter of informant for the purpose of marriage and kidnapped her.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner. It

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65655 of 2022(2) dt.17-01-2023 2/2 is further submitted that the victim has not taken the name of petitioner in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. but later on, in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has taken the name of petitioner and made contradictory statements. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that victim has taken the name of petitioner in her statement.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

However, if petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, learned Court below would pass the order, preferably, on the same day, in accordance with law, considering that there is contradiction in the statement of victim in her statement u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T