Neelam Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1697 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-337 Year-2019 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna ====================================================== NEELAM DEVI Wife of Baijnath Thakur Resident of Mohalla - Rajapur Mainpura, Gate No. 33, P.S.- Patliputra, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. Bihar 3.

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna Bihar 4.

The Dy. S.P., Patliputra, Patna. Bihar 5.

The Offcer In charge, Patliputra Police Station, Patliputra, Patna. Bihar 6.

Vishal Kumar Son of Chhotelal Rajdhar Resident of Village and Post office - Surhan, P.S.- Didarganj, District - Azamgarh ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satya Nand Shukla, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.P.N. Sharma, AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 05-12-2019 This application has been preferred praying inter alia for issuance of an appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, and or direction or directions for the following relief/s: (i) For issuance of a direction to the respondent Police officials to arrest the respondent no.6 at immediately for the ends of justice.

(ii) For issuance of a direction to police official to produce the victim girl and hand over the victim girl to her mother namely the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1697 of 2019(2) dt.05-12-2019 2/2 (iii) For issuance of any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."

Learned counsel states that the complaint lodged by the petitioner with the S.H.O., Patliputra shall be dealt with expeditiously in accordance with law.

Statement accepted and taken on record.

In view of the same, we do not find necessity of issuing any further directions for the reason that the daughter of the petitioner is more than 20 years of age and, even according to him, stood enticed by respondent No.6 and, as such, at this stage, on the basis of materials available on record, it cannot be said that her custody is illegal.

The application is dismissed.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) K.C.Jha/- U T