Jharkhand High Court
Madhu Kumari vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 2 July, 2012
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H.C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 363 of 2010
Madhu Kumari ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar
For the State :
-----
4/2.7.2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner has filed this application for release from Probation Home, Deoghar, where she has been detained in connection with Godda Town P.S. Case No.336 of 2007 instituted under Sections 366A/34 of the Indian penal Code.
3. Godda Town P.S. Case No.336 of 2007 was instituted on the basis of written information given by one Phirangiya Devi, who the petitioner claims to be her step mother, alleging that the petitioner being her minor daughter, was kidnapped on 6.12.2007 by the accused persons namely, Jamum Mehtar, Tufan Mehtar, Kundan Thuakur and Mostt. Rajiya. It appears that the petitioner was apprehended along with Jamun Mehtar and both of them were produced in the Court and taking into consideration her age, the petitioner was sent to Probation Home, Deoghar. It further appears from the statement of the victim petitioner, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 14th December of 2007, wherein she had claimed her age to be 18 years, that she had married Jamun Mehtar out of her free will and she did not want to live with her parents. It appears that an application was also filed by Jamun Mehtar with a prayer to release the petitioner, being his wife, in his favour, but the same was rejected by the Court below by order dated 7.2.2008. Against the said order, Criminal Revision No.44 of 2008/24 of 2008 was filed by Jamun Mehtar and the same was also dismissed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, by order dated 1st October, 2008, in which it finds mentioned that the age of the victim was assessed by the Medical Board, wherein she was found to be about 17 years old in the year 2008.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was found to be about 17 years of age in the year 2008, and as such, she has now attained majority. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not an -2- accused in any case and accordingly, the petitioner be released from the Probation Home, as she has already attend the majority.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of respondent No. 3 Superintendent of Police, Godda. In the said counter affidavit also, it is accepted that the petitioner was found to be aged about 17 years in the year 2008 and accordingly, she was about 19 years old at the time of filing the counter affidavit. It is, thus, apparent that by now, the petitioner has admittedly attained the majority by any parameter.
6. In that view of the matter, I do not see any reason as to why the petitioner be kept confined in the Probation Home, Deoghar, when she has already attended the majority and she wants to live with her husband. In that view of the matter, this application is accordingly, allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith from the Probation Home, Deoghar, where she has been detained in connection with Godda Town P.S. Case No.336 of 2007.
(H. C. Mishra, J) R.Kumar