Ranjeet Mukhiya @ Ranjit Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.36296 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -28 Year- 2017 Thana -RAJNAGAR District- MADHUBANI ====================================================== Ranjeet Mukhiya @ Ranjit Mukhiya, Son of Ram Deo Mukhiya, resident of Mangrauni, P.S. Raj Nagar, District Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Suman Kumari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 10-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking regular bail in connection with Raj Nagar P.S. Case No.28 of 2017, registered for offences alleged under Sections 363, 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The First Information Report has been lodged by the father of the victim girl who has stated that his daughter Puja Kumari aged about 17 years was taken away by accused persons namely Prahlad Kumar Jha and Ranjit Mukhiya. It is also alleged that said Puja Kumari had fled away from her house with a gold chain, one mobile and cash of Rs.30,000/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36296 of 2017 (2) dt.10-08-2017 victim girl has herself come forward and gave her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate at Madhubani, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the present application. The said Puja Kumari has disclosed her age as 18 years and she also disclosed that last year she was a student of 10th class in Suri School at Madhubani. She has clearly stated that she had fallen in love with Ranjit Mukhiya and it was going on for last four years, her parents were against the marriage of the girl with the said Ranjit Mukhiya and they had fixed the marriage of the victim girl with another boy. She has further stated that on 23.02.2017 she left her house with Ranjit Mukhiya and got married in the temple at Pandaul on 25.02.2017 and she is living with him on rent. She further claimed that she was not kidnapped by any one. Learned counsel submits that apparently the allegations made in the FIR are false and not supported by the statements made by the victim.
Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail.
However, considering the nature of the case particularly the statement of the victim girl who has disclosed her age as 18 years and has also stated that she has married with the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping this petitioner in jail. Hence, let the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36296 of 2017 (2) dt.10-08-2017 petitioner, namely, Ranjeet Mukhiya @ Ranjit Mukhiya be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in connection with Raj Nagar P.S. Case No.28 of 2017, subject to the conditions U/S 437(3) Cr.P.C. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Arvind/- U T