Dismissed¶18

Raj Karan @ Fantus @ Raj Karan Kumar @ Fantus Kumar @ Ram Karan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Apr 2025CR. MISC./4747/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4747 of 2025, decided 18-04-2025 by Prabhat Kumar Singh, J. Petitioner Raj Karan @ Fantus sought regular bail in Muffasil P.S. Case No. 171 of 2024 (Nawada) for offence under Section 366 IPC (kidnapping for marriage). Counsel argued false implication, claiming a love affair and marriage solemnized at Kolkata; the A.P.P. relied on the minor victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement supporting the prosecution (forcible removal by car, taken to Mumbai for marriage). Bail rejected on grounds of nature of accusation and gravity of offence.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, the petitioner's prayer for regular bail is rejected. ¶18

Raj Karan @ Fantus @ Raj Karan Kumar @ Fantus Kumar @ Ram Karan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4747 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2024 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada

¶3

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

¶4

Raj Karan @ Fantus @ Raj Karan Kumar @ Fantus Kumar @ Ram Karan Kumar S/O Ravindra Yadav @ Ravindra Gop Resident of VillageAkaunadih, P.S. Mufassil, District- Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, A.P.P. ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 18-04-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Muffasil P. S. Case No. 171 of 2024 in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, this petitioner along with other F.I.R. named accused person kidnapped daughter of the informant for the purpose of marriage.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. As a matter of fact, petitioner and daughter of the informant were in love and they went to Kolkata and solemnized marriage. Petitioner is in custody since 21.06.2024.

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4747 of 2025(3) dt.18-04-2025 2/2

¶17

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of kidnapping daughter of the informant and victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case and stated that it was this petitioner who forced her to get into the car thereafter, she was taken to Mumbai for the purpose of marriage. Victim is minor.

¶18

Considering the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

¶19

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶20

Navya/-

¶21

U T

Raj Karan @ Fantus @ Raj Karan Kumar @ Fantus Kumar @ Ram Karan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Karan @ Fantus @ Raj Karan Kumar @ Fantus Kumar @ Ram Karan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Kemtulla @ Md. Kemtul Vs The State of Bihar

Kariat Nat @ Karait Nut Vs The State of Bihar

Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Rishi Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Abhishek Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar