Dilip Kumar Rai @ Dilip Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76204 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2015 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Dilip Kumar Rai @ Dilip Kumar, S/o Meghanath Ray, R/o Vill.- Saman Chak, P.S. - Dariyapur, District - Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rajesh Sahani, S/O Panchu Sahni, R/O Vill.- Saidpur Chakdariya, P.S.- Sonepur, Dist.- Saran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. B.N. Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-11-2025 Heard Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.N. Pandey, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sonpur P.S. Case No. 218 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the petitioner has kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. It has also been submitted that in this case, the trial is in progress and the victim and the informant have given their depositions before the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76204 of 2025(2) dt.19-11-2025 2/2 trial Court. The victim is P.W.-5 and in her deposition, she has stated that she does not identify the petitioner. No occurrence has taken place with her and that she has gone to her aunt at Punjab. In cross-examination, she has further stated that she has gone to Punjab with her own sweet will. No one has enticed or kidnapped her. It has also been submitted that as the victim herself has not supported the case of the prosecution, there is no ground for keeping the petitioner in custody who is in custody since 16.11.2024. He is having no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the application for bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-10, Saran at Chapra in connection with Sonpur P.S. Case No. 218 of 2015.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T