Amrendra Narayan@ A. Narayan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.820 of 2019 Arising out of PS. Case No.-246 Year-2016 Thana- KOCHADHAMAN District- Kishanganj ====================================================== AMRENDRA NARAYAN@ A. Narayan, aged about 37 years, Male, Son of Bashist Narayan, Resident of C/75, Shiv Sadan, 1st Floor, Near Dobble Park, Police Colony, P.O.- Phulwari, P.S.- Phulwari, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Bihar 2.
The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna Bihar 3.
The District Magistrate, Kishanganj Bihar 4.
The Superintendent of Police, Kishanganj Bihar 5.
The Station House Office, Kochadhaman Police Station, Kishanganj Bihar 6.
Rajendra Kumar Jha Male aged about 47 years, Son of Giridhar Jha Resident of Village and P.O. - Bishanpur, P.S.- Kochadhaman, DistrictKishanganj 7.
Ritesh Kumar Jha Male aged about 24 years, Son of Rajendra Kumar Jha Resident of Village and P.O. - Bishanpur, P.S.- Kochadhaman, DistrictKishanganj 8.
Nilesh Kumar Jha Male aged about 22 years, Son of Rajendra Kumar Jha Resident of Village and P.O. - Bishanpur, P.S.- Kochadhaman, DistrictKishanganj 9.
Mema Devi Female aged about 43 years, Wife of Rajendra Kumar Jha Resident of Village and P.O. - Bishanpur, P.S.- Kochadhaman, DistrictKishanganj 10.
Ritu Kumari Jha, Female aged about 26 years, Wife of Alok Kumar Jha Resident of Village and P.O. - Bishanpur, P.S.- Kochadhaman, DistrictKishanganj ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Gaurav Govind, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 09-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
From the statement of the 10th respondent under
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.820 of 2019(2) dt.09-05-2019 2/2 Section 164 Cr.P.C. we find that she has voluntarily chosen to go with her father.
The petitioner who claims himself to be a close friend of the Respondent No. 10 has come up with a case that she is under an unlawful detention of her father even after divorce has been granted by the court below and she has separated from her erstwhile husband.
In the above background what we find is that there does not appear to be any element of an unlawful captivity as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner otherwise appears to be an unnecessary intermeddler in the family affairs of someone for whom he may be a stranger. We find no force in the petition. The same stands rejected accordingly.
(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) (Anjana Mishra, J) P.K.P./- U