Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1961 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -72 Year- 2018 Thana -MURLIGANJ District- MADHEPURA ===========================================================

1. Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar, Son of Mahendra Yadav, Resident of Village Belo Piprahi, Ward No. 06, P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Durgesh Kumar, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, SPP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer for bail by order dated 16.04.2018 in H.A. Case No.47 of 2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Madhepura, in connection with Murliganj Police Station Case No.72 of 2018 registered under Sections 363,366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(I)(W) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Allegation against the appellant is of kidnapping of the minor daughter of the informant. The statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. would reveal that

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1961 of 2018 dt.04-09-2018 2/2 though she has alleged kidnapping and wrongful confinement, however, stated that the appellant voluntarily produced her before the police.

Submission is that in fact the matter is of love affairs. Appellant is in custody since 09.04.2018. Appellant has got no criminal antecedent. Investigation of the case is already complete.

Considering the aforesaid fact, let the appellant, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court-below where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case, with condition that both bailors shall be resident of territorial jurisdiction of the learned court below and further the appellant shall fully cooperate with the investigation/trial of the case, failing which the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the appellant.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal stands allowed.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Nitesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date05.09.2018 Transmission Date 05.09.2018