Jagdish Thakur v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71756 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2019 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.
Jagdish Thakur Son of Late Ram Chandra Thakur, Resident of Village - Harpur Hari, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali. 2.
Indu Devi Wife of Jagdish Thakur, Resident of Village - Harpur Hari, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali.
3.
Anil Sharma @ Vakil Sharma Son of Jagdish Thakur, Resident of Village - Harpur Hari, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali. 4.
Dharmendra Sharma Son of Jagdish Thakur, Resident of Village - Harpur Hari, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Vasant Vikas For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 07-07-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
In this case, the petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Patepur P.S. Case No. 120 of 2019 registered for offence punishable under sections 363, 366 (A), 383 and 384 /34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation has been made by the informant that her daughter on 04.06.2019 at about 7 p.m. had gone to local market to purchase some articles, but she did not return. When the informant started searching her daughter, she could know
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71756 of 2019(4) dt.07-07-2020 2/3 that her daughter has been kidnapped by one Pappu Kumar @ Amar Kumar @ Tigar Raj son of the present petitioner, Jagdish Thakur. When the informant had gone to the house of the present petitioner and inquired about her daughter, in turn, she was given reply first to pay Rs.5,00,000/- then her daughter will be returned.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the daughter of the informant had gone along with Pappu Kumar on her own volition and she in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.PC. has stated that she on her own volition had gone to Delhi along with Pappu Kumar, son of present petitioner and also entered into marriage with him. Looking to the entirety of the fact that the petitioner is father of Pappu Kumar, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is allowed and they, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from today, are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Patepur P.S. Case No. 120 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438 Cr. PC and also subject to the condition that one of the bailors of the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71756 of 2019(4) dt.07-07-2020 3/3 shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. The petitioners will not induce any witness or tamper with the evidence. The petitioners shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make themselves available as and when required by the court. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T