Raj Keshwer Singh And ANR. v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.46824 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -741 Year- 2015 Thana -SASARAM NAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar, Son of Raj Keshwar Singh, Resident of Village - Badki More, P.S.- Sasaram, District - Sasaram.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Baijnath Singh, Son of Late Subba Singh, Resident of Village - Faridpur, P.S. - Nokha (Dhrampura), District - Rohtas, Sasaram. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.47701 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -741 Year- 2015 Thana -SASARAM NAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================
1. Raj Keshwer Singh, S/o Mahesh Singh.
2. Malti Devi, W/o Raj Keshwar Singh.
Both are residents of Village - Badki More, P.S. Sasaram, District - Sasaram.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Baijnath Singh, S/o Late Subba Singh, Resident of Village - Faridpur, P.S. - Nokha (Dhrampura) District - Rohtas, Sasaram. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In Cr.Misc. No.46824 of 2015):
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
(In Cr.Misc. No.47701 of 2015):
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER -------------- 05-02-2016 Let the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.46824 of 2015 be kept on record.
2/4 The petitioners in both the aforesaid applications apprehend their arrest in connection with Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No.741 of 2015 registered under Sections 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, both the applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The prosecution case is that Punam Kumari, aged about 14 years, the daughter of the complainant/ informant/O.P. No.2, Baijnath singh, had gone to the house of Mithilesh Singh, the relative of the complainant/informant/O.P. No.2, to appear in the Matriculation Examination. In course of returning from the examination centre, the petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar, used to tease her giving threatening to kidnap her. The victim, Punam Kumari, also narrated regarding the same to Mithilesh Singh, who assured her to convince the petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar.
Later on, the petitioners, Raj Keshwar Singh and Malti Devi, the father and mother respectively of the petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar, also asked the victim, Punam Kumari, the daughter of the complainant/informant/O.P. No.2, to perform the marriage with the petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar. While the Matriculation Examination Paper of the victim, Punam Kumari, was finished on 24.03.2015 but she did not return to her home. Then the complainant/informant/O.P.No.
3/4 had boarded on the bus on 24.03.2015 at 10.00 A.M. for going to her home. While the complainant/informant/O.P. No.2 made search for his daughter but he could not succeed in tracing out of his daughter. The complainant/informant/O.P. No.2 also came to know that the petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar, with the help of his parents, namely, Raj Keshwar Singh and Malti Devi (petitioners) have kidnapped his daughter for the purpose of marriage. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that, in fact, the victim, Punam Kumari, the daughter of the complainant/informant/O.P. No.2 fell in love with the petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar, and she moved with him at her own sweet will and performed the marriage but the complainant/informant/O.P. No.2 with ulterior motive has lodged the present case against the petitioners.
Further submission is that the statement of the victim, Punam Kumari, was recorded under Section 164 of the Indian Penal Code on 30.01.2016 by the court of A.C.J.M.-V, Sasaram, in which she has stated that she moved with the petitioner at her own sweet will and perform the marriage and she is also pregnant and also stated her age as 17 years at that time.
Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender by them within six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail
4/4 on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas, in connection with Sasaram(T) P.S. Case No.741 of 2015, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T