Fantush Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(From The Official Chambers Via Video Conferencing) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14142 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2019 Thana- KARAI PARSURAI District- Nalanda ====================================================== FANTUSH KUMAR Son of Tuntun Prasad Resident of Village- Nawdiha, P.S.- Shahjahanpur, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Birendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 11-01-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Karai Parusarai P.S. Case No. 85 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation the minor grand son of the informant, Manti Devi, was taken away by the co-accused Prahlad Prasad and his marriage was solemnized on the point of the pistol with the daughter of Sudhir Kumar.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14142 of 2021(2) dt.11-01-2022 2/2 The statement of victim, Pawan Kumar, was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The age of the victim was assessed by the Magistrate as 10 years. The victim has stated in his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that co-accused Prahlad Kumar has taken him away in Kanchanpur and solemnized his marriage with Dhanti Kumari. The allegation against the present petitioner is that on the point of firearm he forced the victim to put vermilion on the forehead of the girl. Considering the fact that the minor victim has levelled allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner pointed the pistol at him and forced him to marry the girl, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) SONALI/- U T