Pawan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76991 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2017 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Pawan Kumar, Son of Satya Narayan Thakur, Resident of Village- Paroha, P.S.- Kathaiya, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sri Satyendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2019 The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sahebganj P.S.Case No. 256 of 2017 registered under Sections 366A and 368A of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner, as per FIR, is that petitioner has abducted the minor daughter of the informant. It is further alleged that petitioner used to come in the village of the victim girl and on the date of occurrence, petitioner was seen with the victim girl on the motorcycle.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence in the manner as alleged. He further submits that allegation that the girl has been kidnapped/abducted by the petitioner for the purpose of marriage, but nobody has seen the petitioner along with the victim girl.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76991 of 2018(5) dt.16-07-2019 2/2 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that in para-52 of the case diary, one of the witnesses has stated that victim girl was seen by him sitting on the motorcycle driven by the petitioner and another person was also sitting in that motorcycle. He further submits that girl is still traceless and has not been recovered. He further submits that girl is minor and witnesses have seen the girl on the motorcycle of the petitioner, therefore, circumstances are against the petitioner.

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and taking into consideration the fact that victim girl has not been recovered, who is minor aged about 16-17 years, as such I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) sujit/- U T