Munchun Kamat @ Munchan Kamat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73266 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2017 Thana- BENIPATTI District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

MUNCHUN KAMAT @ MUNCHAN KAMAT Son of Kamla Kamat Resident of Village-Sarisab, P.S-Benipatti, District-Madhubani. 2.

Annu Kamat Son of Late Mangal Kamat Resident of Village-Sarisab, P.SBenipatti, District-Madhubani. 3.

Bhano @ Bharosi Mukhiya Son of Rajendra Mukhiya Resident of VillageSarisab, P.S-Benipatti, District-Madhubani. 4.

Kamalu Kamat Son of Late Chandeshwar Kamat Resident of VillageSarisab, P.S-Benipatti, District-Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ratanakar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Benipatti P.S.Case No.225 of 2017 G.R.No.883 of 2017 , registered for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioners and other accused persons is of kidnapping of the minor daughter of the informant and forcibly solemnizing her marriage. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegation is false and concocted which will appear from the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which she has denied the allegation of forcibly marriage and involvement of his father and mother but further stated that Annu Kamat (petitioner no.2), Munchun Kamat

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73266 of 2019(3) dt.18-12-2019 2/2 (petitioner no.1) and Bharoshi Mukhiya (petitioner no.3) have forcibly solemnized her marriage.

Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, so far petitioner nos. 1 to 3, named above, are concerned, I am not inclined go grant privilege of anticipatory bail against them as such their prayer for bail is rejected.

So far petitioner no.4, named above, is concerned, let the petitioner no.4, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM, Benipatti in connection with Benipatti P.S.Case No.225 of 2017 G.R.No.883 of 2017, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

With above direction, this application is disposed of. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T