JAYA ROY,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 363/366/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation the Police has submitted the charge sheet under the aforesaid sections and in addition Section 376 I.P.C. against both the accused. The prosecution case in brief is that on 30.7.2012 informant's daughter went to the field for uprooting the maize crops and when she did not return back till 6 p.m., the informant went to the field for searching his daughter Shahina Pravina aged about 14 years but she was not found. It has further been alleged that during the course of search, the informant came to know that accused Dhaneshwar Mahto and his cousin brother Panna Lal abducted his daughter. On that, informant traced out the mobile number of Dhaneshwar Mahto and when he contacted to him on his mobile phone, he told that they were living at Shivam lodge, Hazaribagh and when the informant went to Hazaribagh, there was no such lodge in the name of Shivam. Thereafter, the informant lodged the present case against Dhaneshwar Mahto and his cousin brother Panna Lal.
(3.) THE learned counsel of the petitioner submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to some family disputes. It is also submitted that it has come in the case diary at para 15, that the victim lady has stated before the police that she went with Dhaneshwar Mahto who is her friend's brother to Madhuban for enjoyment according to her own sweet will. She has further stated that the said Dhaneshwar Mahto never misbehaved with her. Thereafter, the police taken her back to her father. It is also submitted that though the victim girl stated the aforesaid statements before the police but she stated otherwise in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which clearly shows that she was under the pressure of her parents at the time of recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that there are several contradictory statements regarding the abduction of the girl by the petitioner. It is further contended that both the family are quite known to each other and they used to go each other's place often. Petitioner is in custody from 13.08.2012.;