Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21671 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Umesh Singh S/O Late Ram Bilash Singh Resident of Village Inarwa, P.S. Piparahi, District -Sheohar. 2. Pratima Devi W/O Umesh Singh Resident of Village Inarwa, P.S. Piparahi, District -Sheohar. 3. Sankar Singh @ Sankar Kumar Singh S/O Late Ram Narayan Singh Resident of Village Dumri Kala, P.S. Mejorganj, District Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioners The State of Bihar Versus ... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. For the Opposite Party : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 6. 25-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant, who has suo motu appeared. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Piparahi P.S. Case No. 58 of 2011 registered for offence punishable under Sections 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are said to have been instrumental in taking away a minor girl who are later on forcibly married to another person. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners no. 1 and 2 are husband and wife and petitioner no. 3 is the cousin brother of the so called victim girl. The petitioners no. 1 and 2 are co-villagers of the 2
Facts
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21671 of 2013 (6) dt.25-07-2013 2 / 5 husband of the victim girl’s elder sister. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though they are named in the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the girl recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but their role is limited to having assisted the girl in reaching the place where she is said to have been forcibly married to another person. Learned counsel submits that the false implication shall be clear from the fact that the petitioner no. 3 is the cousin brother of the girl and thus it cannot be expected that he would be party to such a crime. It is further submitted that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 were known to the informant and thus they have also been implicated on the basis of the suspicion in the F.I.R. Learned counsel has produced web copy of order dated 07.01.2013 passed by a co-ordinate
Legal Reasoning
Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 51103 of 2012 by which Ranju Devi, Meena Devi and Geeta Devi have been granted anticipatory bail. Let the same be kept on record. Learned counsel has also submitted that other co-accused including Chitranjan Singh who has also been named in the statement of the girl before the Court and having been accused of a similar role, has been granted anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 15457 of 2013 by a Bench of this Court on 08.05.2013. It is submitted that as per the statement of the girl before the Court she was forced to marry Sujit Kumar who had also 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21671 of 2013 (6) dt.25-07-2013 3 / 5 established physical relationship with her. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are said to have been instrumental in bringing the girl to Sujit Kumar and the other co-accused namely, Chitranjan Singh is also said to have been present at that time. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the fact that police have submitted final form against the petitioners on 31.08.2012 but it appears that the Court concerned had taken cognizance against all the accused persons including the petitioners. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the girl was minor and the role of the petitioners have been specifically mentioned in the statement of the girl before the Court. Learned counsel appearing for the informant adopts the arguments advanced on behlaf of the State and further submits that the petitioners have been named in the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the girl before the Court and specific role has been assigned i.e., of bringing the girl to the main accused namely, Sujit Kumar. Learned counsel further submits that in the event the Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, stringent conditions may be imposed so that the family, the girl and other witnesses are protected. From the order dated 08.05.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15457 of 2013, it is clear that the Court had 4 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21671 of 2013 (6) dt.25-07-2013 4 / 5 granted anticipatory bail to Chitranjan Singh and two other co-accused taking into consideration the fact that the thrust of the accusation was against Sujit Kumar. This Court is also inclined to take a similar view in the matter. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks from today, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub Dvisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar in Piparahi P.S. Case No. 58 of 2011, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the following conditions:- (i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners, who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he/she is related with the petitioners. The bailors will undertake to furnish information to the Court about any change in the address of the petitioners. (ii) That the affidavit shall clearly state that the petitioners are not accused in any other case and, if they are, they shall not be released on bail. (iii) That the bailors shall also state on affidavit that they will inform the Court concerned if the petitioners are implicated in any other case of similar nature after their release in the present case and thereafter the 5 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21671 of 2013 (6) dt.25-07-2013 5 / 5 Court below will be at liberty to initiate proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse. (iv) That the petitioners will give an undertaking that they will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if they fail to do so on two given dates and delay the trial in any manner, their bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse. (v) That the petitioners will be well represented on each date and if they fail to do so on two consecutive dates, their bail will be liable to be cancelled. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anand Kr.