SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
BABLU SINGH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR – Respondent
CR. MISC./11860/2021



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11860 of 2021

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2020 Thana- SHAHKUND District- Bhagalpur

======================================================

Bablu Singh S/O Sitaram Singh R/O Village Chandpur, P.S-Shahkund

(sajaur), District-Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha, Advocate

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umanath Mishra, App

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

ORAL ORDER

3

17-08-2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video

conferencing.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of

regular bail in connection with a case registered under sections

363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegations in the F.I.R, the daughter of the

informant who had gone to the college did not return and was

not to be found inspite of search. The informant suspects that

she was kidnapped.

It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner that the F.I.R. was registered after a delay of six days

without any reasonable explanation for the same. The victim

returned and her statement was recorded under sections 161 and

164 Cr.P.C. which are at variance with each other. It is

submitted that the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C made

after three days is a tutored statement. Further, from perusal of

the medical report her age was estimated to be more than 18

years, no injury was found on her body nor any spermatozoa

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11860 of 2021(2) dt.17-08-2021

2/2

was found. The petitioner is in custody since 14.6.2020,

investigation in the case has concluded and he has no criminal

antecedent.

Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking

into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case

including the allegation against this petitioner by the daughter of

the informant in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C, the

Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the

application is rejected.

Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

Prakash/-

(Partha Sarthy, J)

U

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top