IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.201 of 2009 RAMPRAHALAD JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 4 30.03.2009 This writ of habeas corpus was filed by the petitioner stating that his daughter in law, Smt. Pratibha Kumari, respondent no.6, is illegally detained in the Remand Home. His case is that respondent no.6 married his son, Rajeev Jha on 28.11.2008 at Kavi Kokil Sri Vidyapati Samadhi and Annexure-1 is produced to show that they/he had paid amount for conducting marriage. It is further stated that respondent no.6 is pregnant. It has come out in evidence that she made an statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure earlier that she was kidnapped by the son of the petitioner and the son of the petitioner was taken into custody and she was remanded to the Remand Home. But, thereafter she made another statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that her statement was given under compulsion from her parents as dictated by them and she 2 wanted to go with the son of the petitioner, Rajeev Jha, and she was not kidnapped by him. Considering the two statements made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we had asked the girl to be produced from the Remand Home. The girl is produced from the Remand Home. She came along with the Advocates and petitioner as also petitioner’s wife. We put some questions to the girl, respondent no.6 in absence of the parties and she stated that she was not kidnapped by the son of the petitioner but she was compelled to give such statement earlier out of duress. She voluntarily married with the petitioner’s son and she is pregnant by three months. She wants to go with her father-in-law, the petitioner herein. Petitioner and his wife, who are present, stated that they will accept respondent no.6 as daughter-in-law and they will look after her well as their own daughter. It is also submitted by the learned counsel of the girl, respondent no.6, that she is carrying three months pregnancy. She needs care and attention at this time as her safety is in danger if she remains in the Remand Home and she should not be sent back to her parent as her life will be 3 AAhmad/ insecure. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner’s son and respondent no.6 are cousins but there is no evidence to show that they are cousin. Even though their statement that the petitioner and girl’s father are cousins but no relationship was known to the State. In any way, the girl is pregnant for three months. Considering all the circumstances, we allow respondent no.6 to go with her in-laws, the petitioner and his wife, as she is major. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Remand Home, Patna, since it is revealed that she was not kidnapped and she has already stated before us that she was never kidnapped. A copy of this order be produced before appropriate authorities by the petitioner so that necessary order for release of the petitioner’s son can be ordered. The application is disposed of, with above direction. (J.B. Koshy, CJ) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) 4