Sanoj Rai @ Sanoj Kumar Yadav v. the State of Bihar
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a kidnapping case (IPC 366(A)/34). Bail was rejected because the victim, previously traceless, was recovered and recorded a statement implicating the petitioner in the kidnapping.
What did the court decide?
Prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected;petitioner directed to remove record defects within one month.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12405 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2015 Thana- ISUAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
SANOJ RAI @ SANOJ KUMAR YADAV S/o Munshi Ray, Resident of Village - Usari, Bihari Chak, P.S. Isuapur, Distt. - Saran at Chapra.
... Petitioner/s
| THE STATE OF BIHAR ==================== |
Versus ... ... Opposite Party/s ================================== |
|---|---|
| Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ==================== |
Rajani Kumari Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh ================================== |
| CORAM: HONOURABL PANDEY |
E MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR |
ORAL ORDER
3 18-02-2022
The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through video conferencing.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the recovery of the victim and her recorded statement implicating him in kidnapping under Section 366(A) and 34 IPC.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sanoj Rai @ Sanoj Kumar Yadav
- respondent
The State of Bihar
Coram
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court