Amarjeet Pandit @ Anarjeet Pandit @ Anarjeet Kumar Pandit @ Amarjeet Kumar Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75322 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2023 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Amarjeet Pandit @ Anarjeet Pandit @ Anarjeet Kumar Pandit @ Amarjeet Kumar Pandit S/o- Baldev Pandit, R/o Village- Makdumpur Kodariya, PSKarja, District -Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Ms. Bela Singh, Advocate For the Informant :

Mr. Brahmaputra Singh Ishu, Advocate Ms. Poonam Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-12-2024 Heard Ms. Bela Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Brahmaputra Singh Ishu, the learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

Petitioner seeks regular bail who is in custody since 16.04.2024, in connection with Karja P.S. Case No. 244 of 2023, FIR dated 20.07.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Earlier the petitioner has moved before this Hon'ble Court in Cr. Misc. No. 6692 of 2024, which was rejected vide order dated 21.03.2024.

4.

According to the prosecution case, while the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75322 of 2024(3) dt.03-12-2024 2/3 daughter of informant was walking on road, she was abducted by men boarding a Scorpio. It is further alleged that informant's daughter was wearing jewelries worth Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only).

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case and the allegation levelled in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that informant is not the eyewitness of the alleged occurrence and merely on the basis of suspicion, the present FIR has been instituted against the petitioner and co-accused persons. He lastly submits that co-accused person namely, Mukesh Kumar Sah has been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 20.06.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 306 of 2024 and there is a delay of about three days in lodging of the FIR. 6.

The learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., she has categorically stated that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons had

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75322 of 2024(3) dt.03-12-2024 3/3 kidnapped her.

7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Karja P.S. Case No. 244 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur. 8.

Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Shahnawaz/- U T