IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12498 of 2008 MANOJ KUMAR YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner – Shri Anil Jayaswal, Adv. Smt. Anjana Bhagat For the State - Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P. -------------- 4. 13/8/2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner under Sections 363, 366A and 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the petitioner has kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant and there is also allegation of rape upon her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is apparent from the materials on record that the victim girl has gone with the petitioner on her own free will. Further submission is that in the F.I.R. there is no allegation of kidnapping rather allegation is that the daughter of the informant has fled away with the informant. She further states that the averments of the F.I.R. clearly goes to show that the petitioner and the informant’s daughter were known to each other and petitioner was on visiting term in their house and was so much familiar that the informant could identify the “Chappal” of the petitioner at once. She further states that in the affidavit sworn before the Notary, the girl has stated her age about 19 years and has stated that she has married the petitioner without any application of force rather on her own free will and they are leading their married life. Learned counsel further submits that during alleged confinement, the victim girl had several opportunities of raising alarm but - 2 - she did not do. Thus, it is apparent that she has given consent and her action supports the contents of the affidavit. Further submission is that the statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. has been recorded after a lapse of 20 days after alleged recovery. This is the further submission that the informant or the others have nowhere disclosed during course of investigation that alleged abducted girl is already married. This shows the conduct of the informant and falsifies the allegation. Learned counsel for the State submits that the girl has given graphic account of her abduction and rape in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. Apart from that the materials collected during course of investigation supports the kidnapping and rape of the victim girl which is a heinous crime. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Thus, the prayer for bail is rejected for the present. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after expiry of six months from the date of order, if so advised. S.Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)