Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10615 of 2016 (3) dt.18-04-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10615 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -165 Year- 2015 Thana -JANDAHA District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Chandan Kumar Son of Ganesh Paswan, Resident of Village -Narsatpur, P.S. - Jandaha, District - Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nachiketa Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. C.Sen Pd.Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the Sate.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jandaha P.S. Case No. 165 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, Manisha Kumari aged 14 years, the daughter of the informant, was kidnapped by the petitioner. During investigation the victim girl was recovered and she has stated regarding her kidnapping by the petitioner and further that she was administered some intoxicants resulting, she became senseless and during that period what was committed with her by Chandan she cannot say.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has got clean antecedent, the petitioner is aged about 19 years, the victim herself went with him and both were having love

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10615 of 2016 (3) dt.18-04-2016 affairs, the petitioner and victim surrendered before Mahua Police on 04.10.2015 and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP opposes. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner serious in nature, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, considering the period of detention of the petitioner, let the trial be expedited and concluded within nine months.

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