Sitaram Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35462 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -360 Year- 2015 Thana -MAHUA District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Sitaram Singh, Son of Mithu Singh,

2. Kaushal Kumar, Son of Ramjee Singh,

3. Ranjan Kumar, Son of Sitaram Singh,

4. Sitaram Singh, Son of Achhe Lal Singh, All resident of Village- Mirza Nagar, P.S.- Mahua District- Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anish Chandra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Parmeshwar Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in course of pendency of this application, petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 have already been arrested and hence, he seeks permission to withdraw the application with respect to petitioner Nos. 3 & 4. Accordingly, this petition in respect of petitioner Nos 3 & 4 is dismissed as withdrawn.

So far as petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are concerned, they apprehend arrest in Mahua P.S. Case No. 360 of 2015 instituted for the offence under Sections-363, 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the written report that these petitioners along with other accused persons kidnapped the daughter of the informant while she was going for coaching. The Statement of victim, recorded

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35462 of 2018 (4) dt.16-07-2018 u/S 164 Cr.P.C. is enclosed as Annexure-3 to this petition. In her statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that while she was going to coaching, these petitioners along with other accused persons forcibly kidnapped her, took her to some unknown place and kept her confined in a room for seven days. They were pressurizing her to get the case withdrawn filed by her uncle.

In such circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to surrender in the court below and seek regular bail, which will be considered by the court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Sanjay Priya, J) A.K.V./- U T