Patna High CourtCR. MISC./785/2016rejected

Nirmal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2016-03-10Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.785 of 2016 (3) dt.10-03-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.785 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -5 Year- 2015 Thana -BANSHI District- JEHANABAD ======================================================

1. Nirmal Kumar Son of Ram Jeewan Das Resident of VillageMakhmilpur, Police Station Karpi in the district of Arwal. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar ....

.... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Navin Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. T.N. Thakur (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 10-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Banshi P.S. Case No. 05 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the petitioner being tutor of Khushboo Kumari aged 14 years, the daughter of the informant, took away her and switched off the mobile. During investigation the victim girl was recovered by the Police and during medical examination she has been found pregnant.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has been made victim of circumstances, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not stated that the petitioner developed physical relationship with her and the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.785 of 2016 (3) dt.10-03-2016 victim being major went away with the petitioner out of her own sweet will and as such the petitioner who is suffering in custody since 22.05.2015 deserves sympathetic consideration to which learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant seriously opposes by submitting that the petitioner committed kidnapping of minor girl and subsequently subjected to rape also. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T