Raj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10472 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -133 Year- 2016 Thana -PIPRA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Raj Kumar, S/o Jogendra Prasad, R/o Village- Barahasan, P.O. + P.S.- Meenapur, District- Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sumitra Devi, wife of Dinesh Bhagat, resident of village Bediban, Madhuban, P.S. Pipra, Distt. East Champaran.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshnand Pandit, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 09-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Pipra P.S. Case No. 133 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Sections 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged by the informant Sumitra Devi that on 20.7.2016 her son-in-law Raj Kumar, took away her daughter Kavita Kumari on the pretext of illness of her elder sister Sangita Devi. It is further alleged that when the informant enquired from her elder daughter about Kavita Kumari, she told that Kavita Kumari had not reached there and she is well. The informant had expressed her apprehension that for illegal purpose or for purpose to marry with Kavita Kumari, her son-in-law Raj Kumar and other co-accused in connivance with each other had kidnapped her.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10472 of 2018 (4) dt.09-07-2018 2/2 The victim girl on her recovery has given statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. wherein she has levelled specific allegation against the petitioner of kidnapping her on the pretext that her elder sister is ill. He did not take her in his house. He took her somewhere else and forcibly committed illegal act with her. The petitioner kept her confined in Muzaffarpur for two months.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that compromise petition has been filed in the court below. The Sessions Judge has mentioned in the impugned order that victim girl has stated in the court below that petitioner has committed illegal act with her for two months against her will and kept her confined.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

Petitioner may surrender before the court below and make prayer for regular bail.

(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T