Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53489/2018rejected

Rahul Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2018-09-04Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53489 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -229 Year- 2017 Thana -HAJIPUR SADAR DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== RAHUL RAM, SON OF DEV LAL RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGECHAKBHATANDI, P.S.-SADAR HAJIPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. .... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 04-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Petitioner is said to have abducted the victim and for that her father informant Ram Avtar Sahni has instituted the present case. It has been submitted at the end of learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim though minor but admitted that she herself volunteered company of the petitioner as well as got married with him. Also submitted that case been compromised amongst the parties and Annexure-3 is to this effect. That being so, it happens to be a fit case wherein petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

Gone through the order impugned wherefrom it is evident that birth certificate was obtained by the Investigating Officer from the concerned school showing date of birth as 28.04.2004. So certainly victim was minor on the alleged date or even at the time of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53489 of 2018 (2) dt.04-09-2018 That being so, instant petition is found nonmaintainable and is accordingly rejected. However, during course of consideration of prayer for regular bail in case being made on behalf of petitioner, the learned lower court would consider the changed circumstances, preferably. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) Prakash Narayan U T