Mahesh Mandal @ Mahesh Lal Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77108 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2024 Thana- DAGARUA District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.

Mahesh Mandal @ Mahesh Lal Mandal Son of Late Nevalal Mandal Resident of Village - Katare,Ward No.3, Police Station - Dagarwa, District - Purnia 2.

Sajni Devi Wife of Mahesh Mandal @ Mahesh Lal Mandal Resident of Village - Katare,Ward No.3, Police Station - Dagarwa, District - Purnia 3.

Pawan Mandal @ Pawan Kumar Mandal Son of Mahesh Mandal @ Mahesh Lal Mandal Resident of Village - Katare,Ward No.3, Police Station - Dagarwa, District - Purnia ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md Ziaul Quamar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Dagarwa P.S. Case No. 122 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegation against the petitioners is that they along with co-accused have kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant with an intention of marriage.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. Petitioners have implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. It is further submitted that petitioners have no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77108 of 2024(2) dt.13-11-2024 2/2 knowledge about the daughter of the informant. It is further submitted that petitioners have clean antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioners are named accused in F.I.R and accused of kidnapping the minor daughter's of the informant. It is further submitted that the victim girl is still traceless hence they do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

8. However, if the petitioners surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seeks regular bail, the learned Court below shall pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) annpurna/- U T