SAROJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even on repeated calls during revision of the list, none appears on behalf of the petitioner. We have heard the learned A.G.A. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra and Sri B. Narain Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5.

(2.) The case relates to confinement of petitioner Smt. Saroj, who was confined in Nari Niketan, Gorakhpur at the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj passed in criminal case No. 1018 of 2010 which is dated 7th February, 2011, which order was upheld by the learned Session Judge by order dated 21st February, 2011 passed in Criminal Revision petition No. 24 of 2011, Manish Kumar v. State of U.P. and others.

(3.) The background facts of the case was that the above noted Case Crime No. 1018 of 2010 under Section 363 and 366, I.P.C. was registered on the basis of the written report of Ram Charan son of Jagroop, respondent No. 5, who happened to be the father of the above named lady petitioner, Smt. Saroj. The allegation was that when the petitioner went out of her house for attending to the classes, she did not come back and it appeared that the accused Manish son of Ram Bachan had probably taken or enticed her away.