HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
PRADEEP RAI – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
CR. MISC./61476/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61476 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2021 Thana- RAJIVNAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
Pradeep Rai Son Of Dineshwar Rai Resident Of Village- Itwan English, Mastichak,
P.S.- Dariyapur, District- Saran (CHAPRA)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr.Pramod Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Choubey Jawahar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4
02-08-2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be
removed within a period of four weeks from the date of resumption
of physical filing and physical removal of defect.
In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Rajiv Nagar P.S. Case No. 149 of 2021 registered for
the alleged offences under Sections 363, 365 of the Indian Penal
Code.
As per prosecution case, the minor daughter of the
informant went missing and during investigation, the police
recovered her from the house of the petitioner. The victim also
named the co-accused Gautam Kumar, one of his friends who
forcibly took her away and kept her confined.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61476 of 2021(4) dt.02-08-2022
2/2
petitioner is innocent and has not been named in the FIR. From the
statement of the victim, it appears that she was already knowing the
co-accused Gautam Kumar and went away with her. The victim has
not named this petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 164
of the Cr.P.C. Chage sheet has been submitted in this case and the
petitioner is in custody since 29.03.2021.
Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of
the petitioner submitting that the victim girl was recovered from the
house of this petitioner.
Perused the records.
Having regard to the submission made hereinabove and
considering the recovery of minor girl from the house of this
petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this
stage.
Accordingly, his prayer for grant of bail is rejected.
The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial
expeditiously preferably within a period of six months.
However, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid
period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
Gautam/-
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
U
T