Single judge of Patna High Court rejected the appellant's petition for anticipatory bail in a case involving abduction, abuse of caste, and threats against a minor daughter. The court declined relief due to specific accusation and missing victim.
Prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.197 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2021 Thana- SIKRAUL District- Buxar
======================================================
Mukesh Yadav Son Of Munni Yadav Resident Of Village - Kadesari, P.S.Sikraul, Distt.- Buxar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ravi Shankar Pathak For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan Mr. Anil Kumar Roy ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER
3 11-08-2022
Heard learned counsel for the appellant,
informant and learned APP for the State.
The appellant has challenged the order dated
30.11.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge,
1st , Buxar in connection with Sikraul P.S. Case No. 20 of 2021 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, whereby his prayer for being released on anticipatory bail has been rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.197 of 2022(3) dt.11-08-2022 2/3
It is alleged against the appellant that he along
with his other associates have abducted the minor daughter of the informant and when the informant went to raise protest in his house, she was abused by calling caste name and life threatening was also given.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Moreover, for the alleged occurrence of 16.02.2021, the F.I.R was registered on 19.02.2021.
Perused the case diary as well as F.I.R and the impugned order.
Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and submitted that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case in the case diary. There is specific accusation against the appellant and the victim has still not been traced out.
Considering the fact that there is specific accusation against the appellant and the victim has still
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.197 of 2022(3) dt.11-08-2022 3/3
not been traced out, this Court is not inclined to grant
privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant.
The prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant
stands rejected.
(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J)
Shageer/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant given specific accusation and untraced victim.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mukesh Yadav
The State of Bihar
Dhanji Paswan
Sunil Kumar Panwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
