Sanjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39573 of 2017 (2) dt.21-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39573 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -32 Year- 2017 Thana -CHIRAIYA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Sanjeet Kumar S/o Pukar Mahto Resident of Village- Mahuawa, P.S. Chiraiya, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar No.III For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER 21-08-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 32 of 2017 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation as per written report is that this petitioner abducted the daughter of the informant with intention to marry with her.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the allegation, no offence is made out. The occurrence allegedly took place on 10.02.2017, but F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of three days i.e. 13.02.2017 for which no satisfactory explanation has been given by the informant. The statement of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39573 of 2017 (2) dt.21-08-2017 the victim was taken on the date of institution of the F.I.R, which makes the case of the informant doubtful. The victim was examined by the Doctor, who assessed her age in between 17 to 18 years. There is absolutely no material on record to show that the victim was raped and so, the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail.

The learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the submission.

On perusal of F.I.R., I find that there is specific allegation against the petitioner, who abducted the informant's minor daughter with intention to marry her. The victim was produced before the Magistrate and her statement was recorded on 18.02.2017, which appears from the first page of heading of the form of deposition. The victim in her statement has disclosed her age as 14 years. The court below, however, assessed her age as 15 years. In her statement, she has alleged that this petitioner kept her in a room where this petitioner committed rape on her. Considering the specific allegation of kidnapping the minor daughter of the informant and also the allegation of committing rape on her, I am not inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail. The prayer is, therefore, rejected. (Sanjay Kumar, J) ajaypd./- U T