Suman Kumar @ Suman Ram @ Lolkatwa v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89768 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-575 Year-2022 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.
Suman Kumar @ Suman Ram @ Lolkatwa Son of Nageshwar Ram Resident of Village - Pratap Patti, P.S. - Sahebganj, District - Muzaffarpur 2.
Shivkali Devi Wife of Nageshwar Ram Resident of Village - Pratap Patti, P.S. - Sahebganj, District - Muzaffarpur 3.
Urmila Devi @ Sonu Devi Wife of Lalan Ram, Daughter of Nageshwar Ram Resident of Village - Pratap Patti, P.S. - Sahebganj, District - Muzaffarpur 4.
Nageshwar Ram Son of Ganesh Ram Resident of Village - Pratap Patti, P.S. - Sahebganj, District - Muzaffarpur 5.
Bhola Ram Son of Nageshwar Ram Resident of Village - Pratap Patti, P.S. - Sahebganj, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Raju Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-01-2025 Heard Mr. Raju Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 575 of 2022 dated 21.12.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The main submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the instant matter relates to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89768 of 2024(2) dt.08-01-2025 2/3 the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366A of IPC and the allegation as to kidnapping of the informant's daughter by the petitioners is completely false and in fact, there was love affair between petitioner no.1 and the so-called victim and later, they have solemnized marriage and in this regard, affidavit was filed before the trial court and both the parties have compromised the present matter and a cordial relation has established in between them and both of them do not want to proceed with the trial relating to the FIR of the present matter. It is further submitted that the so-called victim has been recovered and she has recorded her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
in which she has not supported the allegation of kidnapping rather she said that she went away from her house according to her own will, so, the alleged offences of the FIR do not attract in this matter and the FIR was registered after the delay of twenty one days from the commission of the alleged occurrence regarding which no plausible explanation was given by the informant.
4. Though learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners but fairly accepted that a good relation has restored in between both the parties as per the order impugned and a lenient approach may be taken in respect of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89768 of 2024(2) dt.08-01-2025 3/3 petitioners' prayer.
5. Considering the above submissions, this Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, let the petitioners named-above, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 575 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Shailendra Singh, J) maynaz/- U T