Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21772/2015dismissed

Sumit Das v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2015-10-08Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21772 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -73 Year- 2014 Thana -SC/ST District- PURNIA ====================================================== Sumit Das S/O Late Samir Das, Resident of village- Balughat at present Janta Chowk, P.S.- K. Hat, District- Purnia .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Radha Kumari D/o Dilip Paswan, R/O Purnia Court Ward No. 18, P.S.- K. Hat, District- Purnea .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Mallick, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Shankar Das(Spl.App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 08-10-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in SC/ST Purnia P.S. Case No. 73/2014, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act and 3(i)(x)(xi)(xii) SC/ST Act.

The victim filed a complaint case making allegation of kidnapping against 8 persons including the petitioner. The date of occurrence is 27.05.2014 but the complaint petition was filed on 19.07.2014. The victim alleged that they all kidnapped her and forcibly solemnized her marriage with Gautam Das. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim had gone with Gautam Das. The petitioner has no concern

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21772 of 2015 (3) dt.08-10-2015 2/2 with Gautam Das.

It is submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. It appears that the victim herself made very specific allegation that the petitioner and Gautam Das enticed her to Raiganj where the victim lived with Gautam Das. The victim is a minor girl. Her date of birth is 28.07.2000, which appears from para 67 of the case diary. Later on she was forced to marry with Gautam Das.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner also participated in kidnapping the minor girl, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

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