Rajesh Kumar @ Jhunu Srivastava @ Jhunjhun Srivastava v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49255 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -321 Year- 2015 Thana -MUZAFFARPUR SADAR DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Rajesh Kumar @ Jhunu Srivastava @ Jhunjhun Srivastava Son of Sachidanand Srivastava Resident of Village- Benchapara, Police StationMashrakh, District- Saran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Indiwar Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 30-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 321 of 2015, registered for the offences punishable under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

The specific allegation has been made against the petitioner to have tortured the victim girl and used to establish physical relation with her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim girl remained six days with the family members so it is not evidentiary value in the eye of law and the learned counsel

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49255 of 2016 (2) dt.30-11-2016 2/2 for the petitioner further submits that there was a love affair with the victim girl so she had voluntarily gone to Bombay. The parent of the victim girl were well aware about her location, who have given the address to the Bombay Police when the police has gone the said place, she was alone there and the statement of the victim girl made by the Bombay Police is not on record.

In view of Section 164 Cr. P.C., it has to be kept in mind that the victim girl has come from Bombay to Patna which takes at least 36 hours and always the period of transit is excluded when the question of living with the parents for six days completely erroneous argument which is not sustainable. So far conferring the address is apparently clear that the petitioner happens to be Mama of the victim girl, family members must be knowing the address where the petitioner is staying and it is a natural act of the person of giving the information about the address of petitioner, this Court does not find any merit in the present case. Accordingly, this application is rejected.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) ajaypd./- U T