Sumit Kumar @ Sumeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78483 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2024 Thana- NOWKOTHI GARHPURA DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== Sumit Kumar @ Sumeet Kumar S/o Surya Narayan Paswan R/o vill - Ward no. 14, Chak Muzaffar, P.S.- Naokothi, Distt.- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Punit Tanti, S/O - Late Mahavir Tanti R/O village - Sheikhpura, P.O. Rajakpur, P.S. - Naokothi ,Dist- Begusarai ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pritish Kumar Lal For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 25-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Naokothi P.S. Case No. 42 of 2024 initially registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and later on, Sections 366 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code has also been added.

3. Allegedly, the daughter-in-law of the informant was enticed away by the accused persons including the petitioner on the false pretext of marriage and later on, as alleged, the petitioner refused to marry with her.

4. Learned Senior counsel has submitted that at paragraph-29 of the case diary, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which, she did not support the prosecution case rather she levelled some allegation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78483 of 2024(5) dt.25-09-2025 2/2 against the informant himself. When she went with her husband and mother-in-law to her matrimonial house, she retracted from her earlier version and supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at paragraph-33 of the case diary levelling allegation against the petitioner but in that statement also, she admitted the fact that she had telephonic talks with the petitioner for 5-6 months prior to the occurrence.

5. On the otherhand, Sri J.N. Thakur learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class/concerned court, Begusarai in connection with Naokothi P.S. Case No. 42 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T