Anita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No 395 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-2019 Thana- VIDYAPATINAGAR District- Samastipur ====================================================== ANITA DEVI Wife of Suresh Kumar Resident of Village- Mau Dhaneshpur South, P.S.- Vidhyapati Nagar, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur.

3.

The Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Dalsingsarai, District- Samastipur. 4.

The S.H.O. Vidyapati Nagar, District- Samastipur. 5.

Sri Ranjeet Rai Son of Param Rai Resident of Village- Mau Dhaneshpur South, P.S.- Vidhyapati Nagar, District- Samastipur. 6.

Vikash Kumar Son of Vathu Rai Resident of Village- Sihma, P.S.- Sarairanjan, District- Samastipur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr Pawan Kumar, AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ) 12-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

The learned counsel for the State submits that counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur. Referring to paragraph 5 thereof, he submits that the corpus (victim girl) has been recovered, medically examined and her statement has been recorded under

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.395 of 2020(5) dt.12-01-2021 2/2 Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code (for brevity, Cr P C) in Mahila Police Station, Samastipur, as also before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Dalsinghsarai under Section 164 of Cr P C. Now, in compliance of orders passed by the Court, the victim has already been released to go along with her relatives. The relatives have furnished the requisite "Zimmanama". The submission of the learned counsel for the State is that in view of these developments, subsequent to filing of this habeas corpus petition, the relief has become infructuous. The submissions on behalf of the State are not denied or disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application, having become infructuous, is disposed of.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U T