Rahul Ansari @ Md. Rahul Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11271 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -592 Year- 2014 Thana -PURNEA SADAR District- PURNIA ======================================================

1. Rahul Ansari @ Md. Rahul Ansari, Son of Md. Riyazuddin Ansari, resident of Village Damka, P.S. Sadar, District- Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Rajeev Nayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 30-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 02.09.2017 in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 592 of 2014 giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 407 of 2017 for offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 364, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case by way of complaint case was lodged by the mother of the victim Neha Parveen @ Sabrin that the petitioner had taken away her daughter to Delhi and got married and when she went to his family members who are other accused, assured to bring the complainant/informant's daughter

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11271 of 2018 (3) dt.30-03-2018 2/3 but she has not been seen by the complainant/informant since then. It is alleged that the petitioner has taken away her daughter for the purpose of selling or either killed her.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, bears no criminal history and the victim lady is a major and had eloped with the petitioner and thereafter married him. He further submits that the own sister and father have given the statement which is at paragraph-5 and 6 of the case diary that the father of the victim had gone to Delhi to bring her and on the station the said victim lady ran away. He submits that he was living peacefully with the victim lady but it is the father of the victim who had taken away and he must have killed her or taken her away another place. He submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no allegation of tampering of the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner. However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, let petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11271 of 2018 (3) dt.30-03-2018 3/3 Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 592 of 2014 giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 407 of 2017, subject to the condition that one of the bailors would be a close relative of the petitioner having sufficient immovable property, who will file an affidavit stating his relationship with the petitioner.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) Devendra/- U T