IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.804 of 2011 Basanti Devi @ Basanti Kumari daughter of Kashi Mahton, resident of village-Jaipur Dhankuki, P.S. Agamkuan, Dist-Patna. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary Bihar, Patna. 2. Superintendent of State Remanand Home Gayghat, Patna, City Patna. ----------- 2 20.07.2011 The petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 29th October, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Patna City in Sessions Trial No. 630 of 2009 by which a prayer for release from the remand home has been rejected on the ground of her minority. 2. Heard Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel for the State. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner is the victim of the occurrence arising out of Agamkuan P.S Case No. 229 of 2008 under Section 363, 366(a) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had love affairs with the so called accused Somar Mahton. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that due to love affairs she had married with the aforesaid Somar Mahton on 01.10.2008 in Malya Mahadeo Mandir, Patna City according to Hindu rites but the parents did not like that marriage, as such the aforesaid case was instituted against the husband of the petitioner and others. Later on petitioner was apprehended on the ground of minority and she has been sent to the remand home as she was not willing to go her parent’s house. He has further submitted that the age of the petitioner has been assessed by the learned trial Court and 2 it has been mentioned in the last portion of the order that the petitioner will complete the age of 18 years on 2.7.2011 and thereafter, she may be set at liberty to live as per her sweet-will. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not the accused in the case and she has not committed any offence and she may be released from the remand home. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned trial Court has considered the matter of minority/majority of the petitioner and it has been observed by the learned trial Court himself that she will complete the age of 18 years on 2nd July, 2011 and thereafter, she may be set at liberty and in this view of the matter, no interference in this impugned order is required. The petitioner may file petition before the learned trial Court for her release from the remand home. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial Court has assessed the age of the petitioner and it has held that the petitioner will complete the age 18 years on 2.7.2011 and it has been observed that she may be set at liberty to live on her sweet will after attaining the age of majority. 8. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The petitioner is at liberty to move the learned trial Court for redressal of her grievance which has also been observed by the learned trial Court. 9. This petition is disposed of. Prakash (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)