Patna High CourtCR. MISC./798/2024dismissed

Sanjay Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-16Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.798 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-872 Year-2023 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

Sanjay Prasad Son Of Late Ram Briksha Bhagat R/O Village- Jamalabad, P.S.- Ahiyapur, Dist.- Muzaffarpur 2.

Kunti Devi Wife Of Sanjay Prasad R/O Village- Jamalabad, P.S.- Ahiyapur, Dist.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Binay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 16-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 872 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners along with other co-accused persons are said to have kidnapped the daughter of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.798 of 2024(3) dt.16-04-2024 2/2 the petitioner no. 1 is working as a constable in Bihar Home Guards where as petitioner no. 2 is home maker and both of them have been residing separately. He further submits that there is no specific overt act against the petitioners only on the basis of suspicion they have been made accused in the present case. The petitioner no. 1 has one criminal antecedent and petitioner no. 2 has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that there is ample evidence against the petitioners in the case diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T