Atiur Rahman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11954 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -251 Year- 2014 Thana -RAMNAGAR DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Atiur Rahman son of Munna Khan Resident of Village - Bauhari, P.S. - Ram Nagar, District - West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ghulam Rabbani For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarun Pd.Mandal(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 23-06-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Ram Nagar P.S. case No. 251 of 2014 registered under Section 370, 363, 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant, mother of the victim, made allegation that her daughter went outside her house but she did not return. One Naushad came and promised to bring her daughter back but he did not bring her daughter back even after taking Rs. 25,000/-. It is submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner figured in the case in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. The victim was recovered from Jaipur, Rajasthan. It is further submitted that mother of the victim also made her statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. but she did not even named the petitioner. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11954 of 2016 (5) dt.23-06-2016 2/2 mother of the victim made a different story of recovery of her daughter. The victim stated that the petitioner called her after giving her threatening and she went to Ram Nagar Station where the petitioner put some intoxicating substance over her mouth and she became unconscious. She got her consciousness at Delhi from where one Hari took forcibly her to Jaipur. She further disclosed that she was in love with petitioner and petitioner was having sexual relation with her. It is submitted that petitioner did not kidnap nor hand over the victim to any one but it appears that the victim has made a very specific allegation that it was the petitioner who called her on threatening and he put some intoxicating substance over her mouth thereafter she became unconscious and she was taken to Delhi and Jaipur where different sorts of torture were inflicted on her.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T