Amrik Chauhan @ Amirak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3113 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2019 Thana- MANPUR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Amrik Chauhan @ Amirak Kumar, Male, aged about 22 years, S/o Late Awdhesh Chaudhary @ Awdhesh Chauhan, R/o village- Govindpur, Beldari, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajnish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mukeshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 28-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Manpur P.S. Case No. 61 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation as per F.I.R. of informant Bhola Chauhan is that the daughter of the informant namely Dipti Kumari aged about 15 years used to go to the Brillient Coaching Centre at 6.30 A.M. along with her friend Krinta Kumari. On 30.03.2019 at about 6.30 A.M. as usual she had gone to attend coaching classes and when she did not return to her house till 9 A.M. the informant went to the house of her friend to enquire

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3113 of 2020(2) dt.28-02-2020 2/3 the mattr, then her friend told that the victim had gone with this petitioner and when the informant visited the coaching where Jitendra Mahto told that his daughter did not come to coaching where Jitendra Mahto told that his daughter did not come to coaching today. Thus the informant has claimed that this petitioner had taken away the daughter of the informant for the purpose of marriage after including her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence is made out against the petitioner because the victim has accepted to marry with the petitioner. He further submits that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has not stated regarding complicity of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence and she solemnized marriage with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties. From perusal of the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it appears that the victim is a minor aged about 15 years and thus the victim appears to be minor girl and the consent of the minor does not matter much regarding her marriage.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3113 of 2020(2) dt.28-02-2020 3/3 hereby rejected in connection with Manpur P.S. Case No.61 of 2019 pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Vth, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Nasimul/- U T