High CourtsSingle Bench

Indrajeet Kumar vs State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 3 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 PAT CK 0017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 365
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33024 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 420 words
1.

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2.

Heard Mr. Rajib Ranjan Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

3.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Itarhi PS Case No. 153 of 2019 dated 20.06.2019, instituted under Sections 363/365 of the Indian

Penal Code.

4.

The allegation against the petitioner, though not named in the FIR, is that he had abducted the minor daughter of the informant.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is the son of the paternal aunt of the informant and the girl had left home due to some dispute

and had gone to Hyderabad where the petitioner lives with his family and it was the wife of the petitioner who had informed the police at Hyderabad

that the girl was at the house of the sister of the petitioner in Telangana from where she was recovered and brought to Buxar. It was submitted that

the age of the girl has been assessed by the Court to be 18-19 years and by the medical team to be 19-20 years and further that the girl has refused to

undergo medical examination. Learned counsel submitted that it is difficult to believe that a person would be forcibly taken to Vanarasi and then

Hyderabad, without the public being aware of such crime. It was further submitted that the petitioner having no criminal antecedent is in custody since

08.07.2019 and till date even charge has not been framed. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is married having three children and, thus, it

cannot be expected that he would commit such an act risking his entire reputation and family relationship.

6.

Learned APP submitted that girl has stated that the petitioner had forced physical relationship with her.

7.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, let the petitioner be released on bail

upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in Itarhi PS Case No. 153 of 2019 subject to the conditions (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the

petitioner, (ii) the petitioner shall co-operate with the police/prosecution and the Court. Failure to co-operate shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds.

8.

The application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms.