PATNA HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON RAVI KUMAR V/S THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHER

PATNA, India, June 11 -- Patna High Court issued the following order on May 13:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Amnaur P.S. Case No. 72 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 366(A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to the case of prosecution, at the relevant time age of the victim girl was aged about 16 years. According to the birth certificate, her date of birth is mentioned as 11.01.2007. It was the case of prosecution that on 20.02.2023 when the victim girl was going to her school, allegedly, present applicant and other accused persons abducted her and subsequently, present applicant taken her at Patna where he stayed about two days and established physical relation with the victim girl. On the basis of report made by the victim girl, offence has been registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Virtually there was love relation between the present applicant and the victim girl and she herself left her house to join the present applicant and also stayed with him for two days. It is further submitted by counsel that the victim girl is aged about 19 years and in support of this contention, counsel relied upon an affidavit sworn by the victim girl i.e. available at page -21 of this application. Since the victim girl is more than 18 years and she herself left her house and also performed marriage with the present applicant, therefore, prima facie no offence as alleged in the F.I.R, is made out against the present applicant. On these grounds, it is prayed that the petitioner may be granted benefit of bail.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner

6. Considering the fact that in the aforesaid birth certificate, the date of birth of the victim girl is mentioned as 11.01.2007, therefore, prima facie, it appears that on the date of incident she was below 18 years of age, therefore, she was not competent to make her consent for alleged act, as alleged in the F.I.R, therefore, I am of the view that it is a case where the applicant is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected.

7. However, the petitioner is at liberty, as prayed for, to revive the prayer for bail after one year, if the trial is not concluded.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.