← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29291/2018dismissed

Uday Jha@ Udai Jha @ Uday Kumar Jha And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2018-07-02Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29291 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -131 Year- 2013 Thana -KUDHNI District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Uday Jha@ Udai Jha @ Uday Kumar Jha, S/o Lal Babu Jha,

2. Rinku Devi W/o Ajay Jha,

3. Nilam Devi W/o Daya Jha Dayanand Jha,

4. Ajay Jha S/o Lal Babu Jha, All are Residents of Vill.- Rajala, P.S.- Kurhani (Fakul O.P.), District- Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sri Niwas Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Sharda Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 02-07-2018 Heard the parties.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Kurhani P.S. Case No. 131 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Allegation against the petitioners and others is of kidnapping the daughter of the informant.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the informant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the prosecution case and he has produced 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim girl from which it appears that she has stated that the petitioners had taken her to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29291 of 2018 (4) dt.02-07-2018 2/2 Barauni where they tried to kill her but on arrival of a police jeep the victim fled away and thereafter as she informed the Dy.S.P. the present case was lodged under Section 364/34 of I.P.C. since she was brutally assaulted by the petitioners. Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides and in view of the submissions made above, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. As such, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. However, petitioners may surrender before the learned court below and pray for regular bail which will be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) AnilKrSinha/- U T