Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21827/2017rejected

Radhika Devi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2017-05-17Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21827 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -159 Year- 2015 Thana -DURGAWATI District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ======================================================

1. Radhika Devi Wife of Vikrama Rai @ Brijnath Rai,

2. Monu Rai @ Monu, Son of Vikarma Rai @ Brijnath Rai, Both Resident of Village- Karari, P.S.- Durgawati, District- Kaimur at Bhabua. At present Resident of Village- Kharwal, P.S.- Naksar Halt, DistrictGhazipur (U.P.). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Anil Kumar Singh 1, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 17-05-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Durgawati P. S. Case No. 159 of 2015 registered for the offences under Sections 366A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners was earlier rejected vide order dated 28.07.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23019 of 2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the course of investigation, victim was examined by the doctor and the doctor assessed the age of the victim to be 18 years old. The victim was major on the date of occurrence, but it

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21827 of 2017 (2) dt.17-05-2017 2/2 appears that the victim made her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal procedure and she disclosed her age to be 16 years. The court also assessed the age of the victim to be 15 years. The victim made specific allegation that the petitioner no.1, mother of Monu Rai, enticed her for the purpose of marriage with Monu Rai and on consideration of the aforesaid facts, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners was earlier rejected.

I do not find any fresh ground to be considered for grant of prayer for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is again rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Mishra/- U T