Sunita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64000 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2021 Thana- MANIYARI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

Sunita Devi W/o Ram Chandra Sahni Resident of village- Sonbarsa Saha, P.S.- Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur.

2.

Ram Chandra Sahni S/O Late Raju Sahni @ Ram Rajju Sahni Resident of village- Sonbarsa Saha, P.S.- Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent, petitioner no.1 is a woman and the informant alleges that on 30.04.2021 at 4:00 am, his minor daughter aged about 15 years was kidnapped by Guddu along with accused persons, including the petitioners, it is next alleged that earlier also on 26.03.2021, Guddu had kidnapped his daughter but on intervention of Mukhiya, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64000 of 2022(2) dt.20-12-2022 2/3 victim was handed over to him.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case being parents of Guddu, it is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR it would manifest that the victim and Guddu were in love as such they had fled earlier also, it is next submitted that the date of occurrence is 30.04.2021 and the FIR came to be instituted on 04.05.2021 i.e., after a delay of four days. Learned counsel submits that the victim has come back and in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. she has not supported the case of the prosecution as has been specifically pleaded at paragraph '12' of the anticipatory bail application.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64000 of 2022(2) dt.20-12-2022 3/3 the case is pending/successor court in connection with Maniyari P.S. Case No. 140 of 2021 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishi/- U T