Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14932/2017rejected

Pappu Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2017-05-09Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14932 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -139 Year- 2015 Thana -BARAULI District- GOPALGANJ ======================================================

1. Pappu Mahto son of Vijul Mahto resident of village - Pipra, P.S. Barauli, District - Gopalganj.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-05-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Barauli P.S. case No. 139 of 2015 under Section 366A, 370, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that petitioner and others kidnapped his minor daughter on 07.06.2015 and his daughter is still missing.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of occurrence is 07.06.2015 but the complaint petition was filed on 22.06.2015. It is further submitted that victim made her statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. making allegation against the petitioner and Mangru Mahto that they forcibly established physical relation with her but the victim filed compromise petition and she is now living in her matrimonial

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14932 of 2017 (3) dt.09-05-2017 2/2 house but from perusal of the statement of the victim, it appears that petitioner and his brother-in-law, Mangru Mahto, enticed away the victim and established physical relation with her. Considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of this order. If the trial is not concluded the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T