Sunita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22287 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -22 Year- 2017 Thana -SASARAM MUFFSIL District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Sunita Devi wife of Rabindra Choudhary resident of Dawanpur, P.S. : Sasaram (M), District : Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 24-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 09.01.2017 in connection with Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No. 22 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, Rohtas registered for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(1) (C )(d) read with sub-section (9)/ 6 (b) of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.

The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that her daughter was taken away by the petitioner along with another minor girl Priyanka Kumari for prostitution.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22287 of 2017 (4) dt.24-07-2017 2/2 It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she is innocent, bears no criminal history and Jyoti Kumari in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has alleged that she was forced by the petitioner to indulge in prostitution whereas the other victim girl Priyanka Kumari did not state in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement that any overt act was committed by any person. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted, hence, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the petitioner had lured two minor girls for prostitution, hence, opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. This application is, accordingly, rejected.

(Nilu Agrawal, J.) Arjun/- U T