Patna High CourtCR. MISC./71020/2023bail rejected

Ankit Kumar @ Ankit Kumar Chandravanshi v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-05Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71020 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2023 Thana- MALI District- Aurangabad ====================================================== ANKIT KUMAR @ ANKIT KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI, SON OF ASHOK SINGH CHANDRAVANSHI, R/O VILL - JASOIYA, P.S. - MALI, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 05-03-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Mali P.S. Case no. 62 of 2023 registered under sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that on the pretext of marriage his sister was taken away by the petitioner herein.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Sister of the informant is a major aged about 21 years 4 months. It was a case of love affair between the parties. On perusal of the statement of the alleged victim under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., it would

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71020 of 2023(4) dt.05-03-2024 2/2 clearly be evident that no force whatsoever was used in her disappearance and she categorically states that she went with the petitioner. It is submitted that the subsequent part of her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is as a result of the force of the family members. There is an inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. The petitioner who has no criminal antecedent is in custody since 7.8.2023.

5. The prayer for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the FIR, the contents of the statement of the victim under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T