Nagendra Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3875 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -16 Year- 2015 Thana -GARKHA District- SARAN ======================================================

1. Nagendra Rai Son of late Kanhai Rai Resident of Village- Tahaltola, P.s Garkha, District Saran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harish Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. P.K.Jha(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 120(B),34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learend counsel for the petitioner submits that actually there is no case made out against the petitioner under Section 364 of the Cr. P.C. He further submits that the petitioner and the socalled victim Ram Pujan Singh, father of the present complainant, had sold some pieces of land to the present petitioner which had caused the ire of the complainant and his brothers. It is submitted that it was on account of such sales, the father, sons and mother had come to be on litigating terms. Therefore, according to the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3875 of 2016 (4) dt.11-05-2016 P2/2 petitioner the allegation that the petitioner took away the victim Ram Pujan Singh to Chapra Court is wholly vague and misconceived.

Diary in this case was called for earlier which has since been received.

After perusal of the case dairy, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that there is sufficient material available in the case diary to implicate this petitioner. It is submitted that at several places witnesses have come forth that the victim Ram Pujan Singh was taken away by the petitioner to negotiate some deal at Chapra Court whereafter the victim did not return and is traceless till date. Investigation of the case is also continuing.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also that the victim has not yet been recovered, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner in connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 16/15. It is accordingly rejected. (Anjana Mishra, J) Saif/- U T