Dinesh Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1334 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-380 Year-2022 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.
Dinesh Ram SON OF Chandeshwar Ram RESIDENT OF VILLAGEKARIHAN @ KARIHO, POP- BISHUNPUR BEJHA, PS- MAHUA, DISTT- VAISHALI 2.
MEENA DEVI WIFE OF DINESH RAM D RESIDENT OF VILLAGEKARIHAN @ KARIHO, POP- BISHUNPUR BEJHA, PS- MAHUA, DISTT- VAISHALI ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rupa Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Akshay Lal Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-02-2024 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of three weeks from today.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 380 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable u/s 363, 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners along with other co-accused persons caught the informant and push
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1334 of 2024(2) dt.12-02-2024 2/3 her down and kidnapped the informant daughter on the point of revolver and fled away.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. It is further stated that there is a delay of 28 days in lodging the F.I.R. It is further stated that the victim is aged about 18 years. She in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she was not kidnapped by anyone. She herself gone to Delhi on 08.05.2022 and solemnized marriage with Pankaj Kumar.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioners.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioners, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 380 of 2022, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1334 of 2024(2) dt.12-02-2024 3/3 Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. This application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Ranjeet/- U T