Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24391/2016rejected

Chandan Kumar Bhagat @ Chandan Kr v. The State Of Bihar

2016-08-09Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24391 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -15 Year- 2016 Thana -BARHAT District- JAMUI ====================================================== Chandan Kumar Bhagat @ Chandan Kr, Son of Gopal Bhagat Resident of Village- Bhaluka, P.S. Barhat, District- Jamui. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ajay Kr. 1, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-08-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Barhat P. S. Case No. 15 of 2016 registered under Sections 370 and 370(A) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act and Section 18 of the Prevention of Unlawful Activities Act.

Duryodhan Pandit, the informant alleged that his daughter was taking tuition from Chandan Bhagat and also the daughters of Shambhu Pandit and Anil Pandit were getting tuition from Chandan Bhagat. On 04.03.2016, he came to know that his daughter was missing on 04.03.2016 and the daughters of Shambhu Pandit and Anil Pandit were also missing. It is alleged that the petitioner enticed all the three minor girls for recruiting them in the ban organization.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24391 of 2016 (3) dt.09-08-2016 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of all the three victims was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but they did not disclose that they were subjected to any sort of torture and hence no case of Immoral Traffic Act is made out.

But from the perusal of the statement of all the three victim girls, it appears that the petitioner enticed all the three minor girls and took them to hill for recruiting them to ban organization. It also appears that when the petitioner received phone call, he allowed all the three victim minor girls to go to their house.

Considering the facts aforesaid that the petitioner enticed all the three minor girls for recruiting them in ban organization, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Mishra/- U T