Allowed

Abhimanyu Rai @ Vicky @ Abhimany Rai @ vivek v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC16 Oct 2015CR. MISC./35096/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge oral order dismissing objections to bail. This court granted bail to the petitioner alleging abduction under IPC Sections 363 and 366A, relying on the FIR's claim of the victim's willingness and delays in recording statements.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties of the like amount.

Abhimanyu Rai @ Vicky @ Abhimany Rai @ vivek Vs The State… — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.35096 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -207 Year- 2015 Thana -MAHUA District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Abhimanyu Rai @ Vicky @ Abhimany Rai @ vivek Son of Madan Rai, Resident of Village - Mahua Singh Rai, P.S. - Mahua, District - Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Imtayaz Ahmad, Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocates
For the informant : Mr. Anand Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.N.Shukla (App)
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER

¶2

3 16-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the informant and the State.

¶3

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 363, 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶4

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that allegation in the first information report itself goes to show that the daughter of the informant has willingly gone with the petitioner as it is stated that at 9 p.m. the petitioner allegedly had talked with the daughter of the informant on

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35096 of 2015 (3) dt.16-10-2015

¶6

2 / 3

¶7

her cell phone. Thereafter, at 10 p.m. she was not seen in the house.

¶8

Now the question would be as to how three persons will intrude in the house, take away the daughter but she will not raise alarm and even the occurrence would not be known to the parents of the girl. It is further stated that the girl was recovered allegedly upon the statement of the petitioner from the house but her statement was neither recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor was her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded immediately. It is further stated that the girl, after recovery was handed over to the parents without any medical examination. Learned counsel submits that even in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. after about two months, the girl has not stated regarding any sexual assault upon her. It is lastly urged that other two co-accused persons have already been granted bail.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and the circumstances

¶10

of the case, the petitioner, Abhimanyu Rai @ Vicky @ Abhimany Rai @ Vivek is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35096 of 2015 (3) dt.16-10-2015

¶12

3 / 3

¶13

satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No.207/15.

¶14

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)

¶15

Sanjay-II/-
U T

Abhimanyu Rai @ Vicky @ Abhimany Rai @ vivek v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhimanyu Rai @ Vicky @ Abhimany Rai @ vivek v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Pradeep Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Ajay Kumar @ Vishu Kumar @ Hanuman Vs The State Of Bihar

Pankaj Kumar @ Chhotu Vs The State Of Bihar

Ramesh Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Ganesh Sharma @ Mahesh Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar