IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29556 of 2011 Amrita Devi Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. ----------- 2/ 11/11/11 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the informant along with learned Additional P.P. for the State. The controversy arose over custody of victim, Veenu Kumari who was released at an earlier occasion on her own getting a P.R. Bond vide order dated 27.05.2011 till submission of medical report and subsequently, after having the medical report available on the record showing her age to be in between 17 to 18 years in connection with Kanti P.S. Case no. 132/11, though she had made prayer before the learned lower court, her mother-in-law jumped in fray before this Court claiming custody of Veenu Kumari which cannot be entertained as the victim was set at liberty on her own sweet will. Furthermore, by having in fray, the petitioner, mother-in-law impliedly admitted the victim definitely a minor controverting the finding of the doctor. The victim has been directed by the order impugned to go along with her natural guardian, the mother. For the present, taking into account the status of the 2 petitioner the prayer so made on her behalf, I do not see a fit case wherein the prayer of the petitioner be conceded with and accordingly the petition is rejected. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)