Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8155/2015dismissed

Umeda Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar

2015-03-02Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8155 of 2015 (2) dt.02-03-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8155 of 2015 Arising Out of P.S. Case No. -53 Year- 2014 Thana -Mahila P.S. District- Arraria ================================================== Umeda Khatoon Wife of Md. Kasim, Resident of villageHospital Road, Rampur Uttar, P.S.- Forbesganj, Dist- Araria .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pradeep Narayan Kr.(APP) =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 02-03-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Mahila P.S. Case No. 53 of 2014 arising out of Special Case No. 06/11/14 pending before learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Araria, registered for the offences punishable under Section 370A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4/5/6/9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Section 4/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The informant made very specific allegation that her mother left her with the petitioner for her bringing up. Petitioner compelled her to indulge in flash trade after she attained the age of 11 years.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8155 of 2015 (2) dt.02-03-2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecutrix made her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and she denied all the allegations made in her statement, on the basis of which First Information Report was lodged. It appears that prosecutrix herself was recovered from house of one Moulvi and she made very specific allegation that it was the petitioner who compelled her to indulge in flash trade.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I do not find it a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders before the court below, the Court below shall consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner without being prejudice by this order, taking into account that petitioner is a lady and dispose of the bail petition on the same day.

Rajeev/- (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) U T