Patna High CourtCR. MISC./77317/2023rejected

Sunil Kumar Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

2024-01-10Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77317 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2023 Thana- DARBHANGA SADAR DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== SUNIL KUMAR SAHNI Son of Panda Sahni R/o vill - Bijlee, P.S. - Sadar, Distt. - Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Hemant Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narsingh Tanti ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 10-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 17 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Sections 366(A), 363/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to the FIR, this case relates to abduction of the daughter of the informant by the petitioner along with others.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. The petitioner is agnate of the informant and there is bonafide dispute between the parties due to which the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also submitted that for the alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77317 of 2023(3) dt.10-01-2024 2/2 occurrence of 31.12.2022, FIR was lodged after ten days without explaining the reason of delay. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 24.4.2023.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR who has specifically been alleged to abduct the daughter of the informant. The victim/daughter of the informant was recovered and her statement has been recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which she stated that the petitioner forcibly took her to Delhi where he committed rape her for a month. The victim girl stated her age about 17 years.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Amandeep/- U T