Neelam Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.49790 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -18 Year- 2017 Thana -NTPC District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================
1. Neelam Devi Wife of Awdhesh Das @ Awadhesh Das Resident of Village- Alampur, P.S. NTPC, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 01-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in NTPC P.S. Case No. 18 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Sections 363, 366(A), 376, 372 and 373 of the Indian Penal Code.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the written report. The name of petitioner has come in the statement of victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. In the written report it is alleged that minor daughter of the informant aged about 15 years who was student of Class IX had gone to her school on 28.04.2017 at 9:00 a.m. but she did not return. The informant made search but he could not find her. The victim girl on recovery has given statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. wherein she has stated that while she was returning from the school, she met with this petitioner. She took her to
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49790 of 2018 (3) dt.01-11-2018 2/2 Railway Station and then brought her to Sultanpur. Neelam Devi (petitioner) met with Chameli Devi in Sultanpur. Thereafter, both of them talked with regard to selling the victim girl. Petitioner also gave threat to the victim girl. Thereafter, petitioner returned and Chameli Devi took the victim girl in village Kauria, District, Motihari and sold her to Sattan Rai for Rs.20,000/-. Sattan Rai kept her for one year and five months and got domestic work done by her. He also committed illegal act with her. One day she anyhow telephoned her friend and also informed her parents. Thereafter, the parents of the victim girl came before the police and she was recovered. The victim girl has stated her age in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. as 15 years.
From the statement of victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. it appears that petitioner has sold the victim girl in collusion with co-accused Chameli Devi to Sattan Rai. Sattan Rai after confining her committed rape with her.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected at this stage. (Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T