Arun Raut v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3857 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2022 Thana- WARISNAGAR District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.
Arun Raut S/O Jagdish Raut Resident of village - Bariyarpur, P.SWarisnagar, District- Samastipur 2.
Pankaj Kumar @ Sarlu Raut S/O Arun Raut Resident of village - Bariyarpur, P.S- Warisnagar, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sumitra Devi Wife of Surendra Das, D/o- Ramudgar Das Resident of Village-Chhatneshwar ,P.S- Warisnagar, District- Samastipur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh For the State :
Mr. Lalan Kumar For the Informant :
Mr. Ramesh Kr. Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 08-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in Warisnagar P.S. Case No. 31 of 2022 registered under Sections 363 and 365 of the IPC.
3. As per allegation, the accused persons kidnapped the victim boy, namely, Navin Kumar and forcibly solemnized his marriage with daughter of petitioner no. 1 and sister of petitioner no. 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3857 of 2025(8) dt.08-12-2025 2/2 that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case. It has further been submitted that both the parties have compromised the case. The petitioners are persons of clean antecedents.
5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners by submitting that the victim is still traceless. It has further been submitted that despite orders of this Court, the petitioners could not produce the victim before this Court.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my view, petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) priyanka/- U T