Dismissed¶17

Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Sunil Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC25 Oct 2024CR. MISC./36563/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Sunil Yadav v. The State of Bihar, Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.36563 of 2024, decided 25-10-2024 by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh. Regular bail application in a kidnapping-for-marriage case registered under Sections 363, 366 and 34 IPC (PS Case No. 111/2023, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani); charge sheet filed and love-affair plea raised by defence, but bail rejected because the victim is still traceless.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is rejected, considering the nature of the allegation and the fact that the victim is still traceless. ¶17

Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Sunil Yadav Vs the State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36563 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2023 Thana- JHANJHARPUR District- Madhubani

¶3

======================================================

¶4

SUNIL KUMAR YADAV @ SUNIL YADAV SON OF SAHADEV YADAV Resident of Village - Mahinathpur, P.S. - Rajnagar, District - Maddhubani (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s

¶7

======================================================

¶8

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shivnandan Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms/Mrs. Sharda Kumari, A.P.P. ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶10

5 25-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the informant.

¶11

The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

As per prosecution case, on 20.06.2023, petitioner made a call on mobile phone of the informant and asked daughter of the informant, namely Rani Kumari, to come to NH57 Chanaurganj and thereafter, kidnapped her with the help of other co-accused persons for the purpose of marriage.

¶13

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as a matter of fact, there was love affair between the petitioner and daughter of the informant and both of them, on their own volition, left the house and no one kidnapped the daughter of the informant. Learned counsel submits that save and except suspicion, there is no other direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner to show his complicity in the occurrence. Charge sheet has also been filed. Petitioner is in custody since 7.1.2023.

¶14