Priyanka Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50700 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-341 Year-2018 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Priyanka Devi Wife Of Dipu Ray Resident Of Malikpur, P.S.- Fatehpur, District - Vaishali.

2.

Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Ray Son Of Sri Ram Lagan Ray @ Lagan Ray Resident Of Manas, Naya Pannapur, P.S.- Akhilpur, District - Patna. 3.

Raju Kumar @ Raju Ray Son Of Late Bharat Ray Resident Of Manas, Naya Pannapur, P.S.- Akhilpur, District - Patna.

4.

Raju Kumar @ Raju Ray Son Of Ramdhani Ray Resident Of Manas, Naya Pannapur, P.S.- Akhilpur, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhishek Anand For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Veena Kumari Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-01-2023 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of three weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable u/s 366A of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, the petitioners are alleged to have kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50700 of 2022(5) dt.19-01-2023 2/3 purpose of marriage.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated at para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner took the informant's daughter with the help of co-accused persons. Learned counsel further submitted that prior to the said occurrence the petitioner solemnized marriage with the victim girl and now they are living together. No offence u/s 366A of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners as no force was used against the victim. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record that suggests that the victim was enticed or forced her to have sexual intercourse with another person intentionally. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Patna in connection with Digha P.S. Case No.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50700 of 2022(5) dt.19-01-2023 3/3 of 2018, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T