Amarjeet Kumar @ Nitish v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72637 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2023 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada ====================================================== AMARJEET KUMAR @ NITISH S/O MAHESH CHOUDHARY VILLAGE- KHARANT, PS. MUFFASIL NAWADA, DIST. NAWADA ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Man Mohan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 16-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2.
Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No.89 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 366(A) of the IPC.
3.
Allegation as per the F.I.R. is that all the named accused persons including the petitioner are involved in kidnapping of the daughter of the informant.
4.
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. No such occurrence in the manner as alleged has ever taken place. Parties are agnates and there is a dispute between them regarding drainage and passage. It is submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72637 of 2023(4) dt.16-04-2024 2/2 alleged occurrence took place on 14.04.2023 but the F.I.R. was registered on 17.04.2023 i.e. after delay of four days and it was sent to the Court after seven days. Such a delay in lodging the F.I.R. without giving any explanation itself creates doubt about the prosecution case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and he has no criminal antecedent. 5.
Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is allegation against the petitioner and the victim in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case.
6.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected. 7.
This application is accordingly dismissed.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T