- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to implead the Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Bareilly, District Bareilly as respondent no.5 in the array of petition.
(2.) Heard Sri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A., who has accepted notice on behalf of the State.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the High School Certificate, corpus-petitioner is minor girl, but as per the medical examination report, she is found to be 19 years of age and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she expressed her desire to go with her alleged husband, namely, Sanjeev Kumar. He further submits that alleged husband of corpus, namely, Sanjeev Kumar had moved a release application of the corpus petitioner in his favour, which was rejected by the court below vide order dated 12.2.2018 as the corpus petitioner was found to be minor and sent her to Nari Niketan, Bareilly where she is at present confined. He submits that even though the victim was taken to be minor by the Magistrate, she cannot be allowed to be kept in Nari Niketan against her wishes. In support of his arguments, he has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court as well as this Court in the case of Parvati Devi vs. State of U.P.,1992 AllCriC 323 and Renu Maurya and another vs. State of U.P. and another, 2014 86 AllCriC 128.;