Corporate Judge rejected the petitioner's petition for regular bail in a prosecution for kidnapping for marriage alleging abduction of a minor, citing specific vehemence of victim's statement and the nature of charges.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9849 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-252 Year-2019 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria
======================================================
Shamim @ Md. Shamim Aged About 28 Years S/O Alauddin @ Md. Alauddin R/O Barkauna, P.S. Mirganj, Distt- Purnea.
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md Fazle Karim, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.A.G. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER
3 05-08-2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
The petitioner seeks regular bail in Raniganj Police
Station Case No. 252 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under sections 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, petitioner and other two co-accused persons abducted minor daughter of the informant for the purpose of marriage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. FIR has been lodged after delay of 17 days and there is no explanation of delay. As per medical report, victim has been found to be aged about 18 years and no sign of recent sexual act has been found. Petitioner has got clean antecedent and he is in custody since 26.9.2020.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9849 of 2021(3) dt.05-08-2021 2/2
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the victim in her section 164 Cr.P.C. statement has alleged that the petitioner forcibly took her to Delhi and on the allurement of marriage, he established physical relation and then returned to Purnea and leaving her fled away.
In view of the specific allegation against the petitioner made by the victim in her section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, his prayer for bail is refused.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Shashi
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in an abduction for marriage case under Sections 366A/34 IPC despite clean antecedents and the dispute regarding the victim's age and timing of FIR.
Shamim @ Md. Shamim
The State Of Bihar
Prabhmat Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
