Randhir Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72770 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-399 Year-2023 Thana- RAJGIR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Randhir Kumar son of Ramanand Prasad @ Ramanand Yadav VillageKrishnapuri Rajgir Dist- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr.Aryan Singh For the State :
Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad For the Informant :
Mr.Ujjawal Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for offence under Sections 364, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, all the F.I.R. named accused persons including this petitioner kidnapped the son of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is counter blast of Rajgir P.S. Case No. 393 of 2023, lodged by the petitioner on 03.08.2023, alleging therein that he is a C.R.P.F. personnel and on 02.08.2023, his wife informed him that his 17 years old daughter was abducted by one Chunnu Kumar, who is operator of St.Joseph School and when petitioner reached at the school, the said operator was found absent and his mobile phone was also switched off and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72770 of 2023(5) dt.10-07-2024 2/2 after lodging of the said F.I.R. by petitioner, on the same date i.e. 03.08.2023, two different F.I.Rs. were lodged against petitioner by the relatives of Chunnu Kumar i.e. Rajgir P.S. Case No. 399 of 2023 and Nimchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 147 of 2023.
5. However, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the informant submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there is specific allegation against him that he alongwith other co-accused persons kidnapped the son of informant. The victim, in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has supported the prosecution case.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T