Diwana Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42835 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2019 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria ====================================================== Diwana Kumar, Aged about 20 years, Male, Son of Dular Chandra Sah @ Dularchand Sah, Resident of Village Fareh, P.S. Chautham, District Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bishweshwar Ram For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 11-07-2019 Heard both sides.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Chautham P.S. Case No.94 of 2019, registered under Sections 366(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The mother of the victim disclosed that Chandramila Devi, wife of Dularchand Sah came to her house and took her daughter on the pretext of worship but her daughter did not return. During the course of search, the informant came to know from Mamta Devi, sister-in-law of the informant, that Diwana Kumar, the petitioner and Shyam Kumar were taking on a motorcycle.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the next door neighbour of the informant. The victim accompanied the petitioner as there was love affair

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42835 of 2019(2) dt.11-07-2019 2/2 between the victim and the petitioner. The victim made her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she disclosed that while she had gone outside her house to take water, the petitioner forcibly took her to Saharsa. It is submitted that from the statement of the victim, it would appear that the victim did not raise any protest while she was being taken to different places from her house and this fact goes to show that the victim was a consenting party. The doctor found the age of the victim between 16 to 18 years but it appears that the victim is a minor girl. She disclosed her age to be 17 years before the Judicial Magistrate. The court also assessed the age of the victim to be 17 years.

Taking into consideration the fact that the victim was minor and her consent appears to be immaterial, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T