Sangeeta Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4520 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -77 Year- 2014 Thana -GOGRI District- KHAGARIA ======================================================

1. Sangeeta Devi W/o Amari Kumar, D/o Arun Mandal Resident of VillageBye-pass Road No.15, Jamalpur, P.S.- Gogri, District- Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arvind Kr.Panday(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-02-2016 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is of abducting the minor daughter of the informant. It is specifically alleged that the victim went in the company of the petitioner being the friend of the victim. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in 164 Cr. P.C. statement, the victim got her age recorded as 16 years when the court assessed her age as such, though, as per medical opinion, she has been found between 17 to 18 years where she stated that she went with the petitioner to Dalsingsarai as both were friends. She further stated that Dipak and Nishant used to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4520 of 2016 (2) dt.02-02-2016 2/2 threat the petitioner and the victim for coming to Dalsingsarai. The victim and the petitioner met with a person namely Nawal along with Sintu, Navu, Sushil Kumar and a lady at Dalsingsarai. Thereafter, Navu took the victim to Rampur and the petitioner returned home, thereafter Navu got the victim married with Sushil, subsequently, the victim came to know that Navu sold the victim for Rs. 30,000/- to Sushil. The victim claimed to be residing as wife with Sushil and from there her father brought her back. Considering the thrust of accusation against Navu, Dipak, Sushil and Nishant, petitioner being a lady and 164 Cr. P.C.

, statement of the victim where she suggested that she went in the company of the petitioner of her own, let the above named petitioner be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of `10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Khagaria in connection with Gogri P.S. Case No. 77 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Amrendra/- U T