Amit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27084 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -55 Year- 2017 Thana -NANHPUR District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Amit Kumar, son of Bamdeo Mandal @ Baldeo Mandal, resident of Village- Bela Bahadurpur, Police Station- Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Rita Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 14-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nanpur P.S. Case No. 55 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, as lodged by the victim's father, is that the victim Archana Kumari has been forcibly kidnapped by the petitioner and taken away to Delhi. Father of the petitioner called the informant to Delhi, but after sometime, victim girl was made to disappear.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27084 of 2017 (3) dt.14-07-2017 2/3 It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, the fact is that the petitioner and the victim girl were in love with each other and while the mother was sleeping in the house and father and brother had gone for her faldan at Muzaffarpur, she eloped with the petitioner, which fact has also come in the supervision note. He submits that the victim girl in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has not alleged any overt act committed by the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the victim girl is a major as certified by the medical report stating her age between 18 - 19 years. He submits that he is in custody since 21.03.2017 and that charge-sheet has already been submitted, hence, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the petitioner had taken away the informant's daughter and kept at various places, hence, opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, let the petitioner above named be

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27084 of 2017 (3) dt.14-07-2017 3/3 enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri, Sitamarhi in connection with Nanpur P.S. Case No. 55 of 2017. (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Arjun/- U T