Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31952/2016rejected

Murari Kumar Jha @ Murari Jha v. The State Of Bihar

2016-09-26Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31952 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -206 Year- 2015 Thana -RUNISAIDPUR District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Murari Kumar Jha @ Murari Jha Son of Radheshyam Jha Resident of village- Athari, P.S.- Runni Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Verma, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 26-09-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Runni Saidpur P.S. Case No. 206/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code. The father of the victim alleged that his daughter went outside the house on 17.04.2015 for some work, but she did not return. During the course of search, the villagers disclosed that the petitioner took the daughter of the informant on motorcycle to Runni Saidpur. The father of the petitioner disclosed that first wife of the petitioner is not beautiful and that is why he wanted to marry with the victim and took her to somewhere else. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence. The victim is a major girl. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31952 of 2016 (3) dt.26-09-2016 2/2 informant filed this petition stating that his daughter did not return and filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi that the victim girl picked up quarrel with her mother and that is why she went to Delhi, but from perusal of case diary it appears that the victim made her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she disclosed that the petitioner enticed her to Delhi and also established physical relation with her.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T