Patna High CourtCR. MISC./38626/2018rejected

Amarjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2018-07-24Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38626 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -20 Year- 2017 Thana -KIHIRI MORE District- PATNA ====================================================== Amarjeet Kumar S/o Shiv Lal Choudhary, R/o Vill.- Vill.- Paigambarpur, P.S.- Khiri More, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Arbind Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Special Case No.42 of 2018 arising out of Khiri More P.S. Case No.20 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code. As per F.I.R., this petitioner with the help of other coaccused kidnapped the minor daughter of informant when she had gone to school.

It has been submitted that the occurrence of kidnapping took place on 14.04.2017 but the F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of 11 days. The victim was recovered on 25.05.2017 and after four days of recovery she was produced

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38626 of 2018 (3) dt.24-07-2018 before magistrate for statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been declared juvenile and remained in custody since 26.05.2017 having clean antecedent and so he deserves bail. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the submission.

From perusal of F.I.R., I find that this petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and specific allegation is that he has kidnapped the minor daughter of informant. According to the school certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 03.04.2002. She was produced before the magistrate where she has supported the allegation of kidnapping by this petitioner with the help of other co-accused. She has stated that she was kept confined in a room where this petitioner repeatedly committed rape on her. The doctor has assessed her age in between 14-16 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Prayer of bail is accordingly rejected.

(Sanjay Kumar, J) Harish/- U