Patna High CourtCR. MISC./77800/2019dismissed

Vikash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2020-03-06Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77800 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-839 Year-2019 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== VIKASH KUMAR Son of Sri Satrudhan Yadav Resident of VillageBhagwani, Ward No.1, P.S.-Ghailarh (Madhepura), District-Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application for regular bail arises out of Madhepura (Gailarh) P.S. Case No. 839 of 2019, disclosing the offences under Sections 366, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation in the First Information Report is against the petitioner and others of having kidnapped the informant's wife. The victim was subsequently recovered and her statement has been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. She has supported the narration of the prosecution case as mentioned in the First Information Report. As per the said statement which has been brought on record by way of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77800 of 2019(3) dt.06-03-2020 2/2 Annexure-2 of the application, the victim was kidnapped by the petitioner and other four persons.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has attempted to persuade this Court that the petitioner and the alleged victim were known to each other and because they had developed some level of intimacy, they had eloped, against wishes of the informant, because of which, false criminal case has been lodged.

Be that as it may, considering the fact that the victim herself has supported the allegation of her abduction, I am not inclined to allow the petitioner privilege of regular bail at this stage.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

The petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if there is no progress in the trial in the meanwhile.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) S.Ali/- U T