Meena Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77416 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2024 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

Meena Devi W/o- Chandeshwar Ram Resident of Village-Paroo, Babu Tola, P.S.- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur 2.

Roma Kumari @ Rama Kumari W/o- Ratnesh Kumar Resident of VillageParoo, Babu Tola, P.S.- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur 3.

Chandeshwar Ram S/o- Late Khelawan Ram Resident of Village-Paroo, Babu Tola, P.S.- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur 4.

Vishwanath Ram @ Vishvanath Ram Son of Late Sunar Ram Resident of Village-Paroo, Babu Tola, P.S.- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No. II, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kr. No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 14-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Dilip Kr. No. 1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Paroo P.S. Case No. 119 of 2024, registered for the offence punishable u/s 363, 366(A), 34 of IPC.

3.

Allegedly, the petitioners along with some unknown coaccused persons have kidnapped the daughter of the informant. 4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place rather the victim herself left her house without

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77416 of 2024(2) dt.14-11-2024 2/2 informing her family members and due to altercation between them the petitioners have been made accused in this case. The allegation leveled against the petitioners are not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that date of occurrence mentioned by the informant is 29.04.2024 but FIR was after delay of two days without giving any explanation about the delay. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para 3 of bail application.

5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on their behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

8.

However, the petitioners are at liberty to surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order, preferably, on the same day, in accordance with law. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) priyanka/- U T