Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27711 of 2012 (4) dt.12-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27711 of 2012 ====================================================== Deoki Nandan Agrawal .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.28417 of 2012 ====================================================== Baby Kumari @ Baby Nurse .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.29930 of 2012 ====================================================== Sima Kumari @ Sima Devi .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 12-09-2012 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and the State. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] . It is alleged that the informant brought his 16 years old daughter, a student of Class VIIth to Patna to his brother in law’s residence, eight months prior to the occurrence for treatment. The brother in law of informant was tenant of petitioner Baby Kumari, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27711 of 2012 (4) dt.12-09-2012 who was a nurse in Dental College, Patna, when Baby Kumari informed that the daughter of informant has to be operated for which Rs.14,000 were paid when Baby Kumari along with Dinesh Singh, technician of dental hospital, brought informant’s daughter Rina Devi to J.N. Nursing Home when the daughter of informant gave birth to a child when Avinash Singh, the head compounder of the said Nursing Home conveyed that the informant’s daughter gave birth to a dead child when the other nurse of J.N. Nursing Home namely Sima Devi (other petitioner) and Avinash did not allow the informant and informant’s brother to meet the daughter of informant when next day, the daughter of informant regained consciousness, she disclosed that she gave birth to a live child and the brother in law of informant conveyed that the new born child was taken by Avinsh and Dinesh and some unknown persons on an Ambulance and it was further found that the child was being taken by Avinash, Baby, Dinesh Singh and the owner of the canteen of Ford Hospital, namely Sandeep Kumar, to the cloth shop of petitioner Deoki Nandan Agrawal. It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Deoki Nandan Agrawal that Sandeep was known to this petitioner who informed that the guardian of the child, born to an unmarried girl, have consented to give the child Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27711 of 2012 (4) dt.12-09-2012 in adoption to one of the relation of this petitioner when this petitioner came to know about the falsity of statement made by Sandeep then child was sent to Sandeep through Balwant. Hence accusation of kidnapping is not made out against this petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of Baby Kumari that it is only alleged against this petitioner that she wrongly conveyed to the informant that the dead child was born and the statement of Balwant recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. does not disclosed the culpability of this petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner Sima Kumari that the child was born at J.N. Nursing Home but since he was not well, he was taken to Ford Hospital at the instance of Baby Nurse and was again brought to J.N. Nursing Home when Rina was discharged on 30.5.2012 and the case has been lodged at the instance of proprietor of the neighbouring nursing home. It is submitted by learned counsel for informant that the daughter of informant was operated at behest of Baby Kumari when the child was recovered when the driver of petitioner Deoki Nandan handed over the child to Sandeep and the confessional statements of Sandeep and Balwant as well as 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Balwant reflect the involvement of petitioners. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27711 of 2012 (4) dt.12-09-2012 appears that whole drama occurred since the illegitimate child born to the minor and the thrust of accusation is against Sandeep who has been chargesheeted whereas the investigation is pending against others, let the above named petitioners be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of investigation in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of twelve weeks from today on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Patna in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 209 of 2012 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the petitioners will be accepted on filing of affidavit by each of the petitioner before the learned court below that they shall regularly cooperate with the investigation. The said affidavit will be transmitted by the learned court below to the concerned I.O. Non cooperation in investigation by the petitioners will give liberty to prosecution to file application for cancellation of bail by learned court below. Anil/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 365

Statute Text:
Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.