Patna High CourtCR. MISC./47401/2016rejected

Amarjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2016-12-13Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47401 of 2016 (2) dt.13-12-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.47401 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -719 Year- 2016 Thana -SASARAM NAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Amarjeet Kumar son of Ravindra Sah resident of Village- Hurka, Police Station- Sasaram (Tilouthi), District- Rohtas at Sasaram. .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Satya Nand Shukla ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 13-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sasaram (Tilouthu) P.S. Case No. 719 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is named in the first information report with allegation that he and his associates kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant. During investigation the statement of the minor victim has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has supported the allegation of kidnapping as well as that she was kept by the petitioner for ten days and the petitioner used to sleep with her against her will.

Submission is of false implication and that the victim girl

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47401 of 2016 (2) dt.13-12-2016 went out of her own sweet free will and consent and thereafter, she has implicated the petitioner falsely. There is contradiction in the statement of the victim girl from the first information report. In the first information report the date of occurrence is mentioned as 17.06.2016 whereas she has stated the date of occurrence as 15.06.2016.

Learned APP submits that the victim girl is aged about 14 years and such discrepancy is not vital.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T