Shailesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76317 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-2022 Thana- PAUTHU District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Shailesh Kumar Son of Late Surendra Bind @ Late Surendra Vind villageKarma Pandey P S -Pauthu, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Kameshwar Yadav Son of Late Balram Yadav village- Karma Pandey P S -Pauthu, District- Aurangabad ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vinod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused person has kidnapped the daughter of the informant.
4. Earlier the anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2023 passed in 72996 of 2022, with a liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Court below, but the petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76317 of 2024(2) dt.13-12-2024 2/2 surrendered in the learned Court below on 01.08.2024, after delay of about one year and four months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that there is delay of nine days in filing F.I.R. without explaining any reasonable cause of delay. He further submits that the petitioner is languishing in custody since 01.08.2024. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.
6. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Pauthu P.S. Case No.93 of 2022.
8. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charges. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T