Bipin Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40058 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -196 Year- 2016 Thana -BARACHATTI District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Bipin Kumar Son of Bechan Prasad @ Bechan Mahto Resident of village - Tiwarichak, P.S. Barachatti, District Gaya at Present resident of village - Bharui, P.S. Barachatti, District Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Satyendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 19-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

Informant who happens to be father of victim, Riddhi Kumari @ Nickkey Kumari and further disclosed her age to be 14 years, a student of Class-VIII had alleged that petitioner had kidnapped the victim.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the victim was subject to medical examination and her age has been estimated in between 17-18 years. In the aforesaid background, victim happens to be major. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. exonerated the petitioner as she has volunteered herself, accompanied the petitioner, married with him and so there was no kidnapping. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner should be released on bail.

Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail.

Inspite of direction having been rendered by the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40058 of 2016 (2) dt.19-09-2016 Hon'ble Apex Court in Jernail Singh v. Haryana as reported in 2013 Cr.L.J 3976 and further followed in the case of Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra as reported in (2013) 14 SCC 637 whereunder it has been directed that the age of the victim should be ascertained in same way that of juvenile in accordance with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, victims are being frequently subject to Medical Board for ascertainment of her age and the aforesaid process is being deprecated.

The learned lower court should take notice thereof. For the present, prayer of the petitioner is rejected. The learned lower court is directed that in case, prayer is made on behalf of victim for ascertainment of her age, then will proceed in terms of direction having been given by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in case, the victim is found major, then in that event, will itself release the petitioner on bail, contrary to it, will pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) perwez U T