IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4078 of 2008 CHANDAN SAH & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 8.5.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. representing the State and the informant. This is a case under Section 363/366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is in custody since 17.8.2007. Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner had yesterday made a submission that as a matter of fact the whole story of kidnapping of a girl for marriage was absolutely an absurd story inasmuch as the girl had gone with one co-accused Rabi Sahni on her own sweet will. He had also relied on the document (Annexure-2) in which an admission had been made by the victim girl to this extent. It was also submitted that as a matter of fact, the girl was major as was assessed by the medical experts and in any event, the role of the petitioner of an accomplice, could not have made him liable to the extent that the girl has been kidnapped by the petitioner himself when she had accepted. Yesterday, counsel for the Informant was not equipped with the instructions on Annexure-2 the handwritten note of the victim girl and in fact after a copy of 2 the bail application was made available to him yesterday, he has taken instruction from the victim girl, who has also appeared personally today before this court. She has explained that it is true that Annexure-2 is in her own handwriting but that was written under threat and pressure of the accused persons during her confinement. This Court would not like to make any comment on this aspect as the trial of the petitioner and other co-accused is pending and that document (Annexure-2) may be used as a defence document. However, in view of the fact that now when the girl says that Annexure-2 was not written by her own free will and further in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has also fully supported the prosecution case, it cannot be said that the said occurrence had not taken place. That apart, the age of the girl is also in dispute in as much as though medical evidence shows that she was above eighteen years but the school certificate shows that she was born on 27.9.1994. Again this Court would not like to make any comment on the question of age which can be gone into effectively at the stage of trial. This Court considering the facts and circumstances of this case, would only like to observe that when the charges against the petitioner has already been framed in the month of April, 2008, it is expected that the Trial Court 3 would expedite the trial and accordingly, a direction is being given to the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of nine months. The petitioner who is in custody since 17.8.2007 is given liberty to move after nine months initially to the Trial Court and in case the trial has not been concluded within the aforementioned period, the Trial Court will give reason as to why the trial is not concluded within the aforementioned period and thereafter, the petitioner may move this Court for bail. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this bail application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)