Patna High Court - Orders
Smt. Sumitra Devi & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 1 December, 2017
Author: Rajendra Kumar Mishra
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.55977 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -417 Year- 2017 Thana -DANAPUR District- PATNA
======================================================
1. Smt. Sumitra Devi aged about 46 years wife of Badri Rai
2. Kushmi Devi aged about 24 years wife of Pirthivi Rai @ Shiv Prasad.
3. Pinki Kumari aged about 19 years daughter of Badri Rai
4. Veena Devi aged about 25 years wife of Pirthvi Rai
5. Shiv Prasad aged about 30 years son of Vishwanath Rai All Resident of
Mohalla- New Gosai Tola Road, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-12-2017Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Danapur P.S. Case no. 417 of 2017, registered under Sections 366(A) and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accusation is that on 30.06.2017, the daughter of the informant Sudama Rai had gone to attend her coaching classes, but she did not return to the house. In course of search, the informant came to know that his minor daughter has been kidnapped by Mantu Kumar, Son of Badri Rai. When informant reached to the house of Badri Rai and enquired about his daughter, then Badri Rai and his other family members started to abuse him saying that his daughter will not be Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.55977 of 2017 (2) dt.01-12-2017 2/2 traced out and they will perform the marriage of his daughter with Mantu.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are family members of Badri Rai, father of Mantu, and they have falsely been implicated in this case. Further submission is that, in fact, daughter of the informant left the house due to un-success in Matriculation examination and she went to her maternal uncle's house and after returning from there, she gave her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 11.08.2017 in which she denied about her kidnapping saying that after un-success in Matriculation examination, she was disturbed and she went to the house of her maternal uncle.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the ACJM, Danapur in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 417 of 2017, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/-
U T