IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15915 of 2008 MD.HASSAN ALAM @ BAITHA son of late Md.Rafique resident of village-Kelabari-Chousa, P.S.-Chousa, Dist.-Madhepura …. ….Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …… …..Opp.Party ----------- 2. 30.6.2010. Heard Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The sole petitioner has prayed for quashing of part of the order dated 15.1.2008 passed by Sri Braj Kishore Prasad Gupta, learned Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Cr. Revision No.202 of 2007. By the said order, while affirming the order dated 13.12.2007 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in Chousa P.S. Case No.114 of 2007, the learned Sessions Judge has imposed a condition for release of the victim in favour of the petitioner, which is as follows : “ Therefore, the father of the victim girl in whose favour the learned C.J.M., Madhepura ordered to release the victim must furnish a bond that she will not be married till disposal of the case and her life will not be put in danger nor she will be physically and mentally harassed. After attaining the age of majority she may appear before the court and file a petition according to her sweet will to go with her alleged husband or to reside with 2 her parents.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically challenged the portion of the order to the extent that “she will not be married till the disposal of the case”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid condition is entirely unwarranted. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials available on record. The short fact of the case is that the first information report vide Chousa P.S. Case No.114 of 2007 was registered under Sections 363, 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of written report submitted by the petitioner wherein it was alleged that the daughter of the informant aged about 15 years, namely, Abeena Khatoon was kidnapped by Shashi Sharma and Manoj Sharma on the point of pistol, while she was sleeping in her house along with her family members. After registering the first information report, the police started investigation and during investigation the victim girl and one of the accused namely Shashi Sharma were recovered. Subsequently, statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she asserted that she had wilfully married with Shashi Sharma. Thereafter, the victim was sent to the after-care-home. While she was lodged in the after-care-home, she sent application to the court for releasing her to go along with her husband. Immediately thereafter, another petition was filed in which she took a different stand and it was prayed to allow her to go along with her parents. Thereafter, on the observation of the 3 court a petition was sent from after-care-home duly forwarded by Superintendent of the after-care-home in which the victim requested that she may be allowed to go along with her father. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 13.12.2007 released the victim in favour of her father i.e. the petitioner with a condition that as and when required the petitioner will produce the victim before the court. After the order to release was passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused, namely, Shashi Sharma while filing a bail petition also filed a criminal revision petition vide Cr.Revision No.202 of 2007 against the order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate. While hearing the said criminal revision petition, the learned Sessions Judge summoned the victim and the victim accepted before the court that her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded under coercion and desired to go along with her father. The learned Sessions Judge by its order dated 15.1.2008 rejected the said criminal revision petition filed by the accused, namely, Shashi Sharma but he imposed a condition that the victim will not be married till the disposal of the case. This court is of the opinion that such condition was purely unwarranted and contrary to the interest of the victim. There was no necessity to put such condition. It has not been disputed before the Sessions Judge that the victim was not minor on the date of passing the order. If the victim was minor, there was no point to consider that marriage in between victim and the accused was legal or in 4 accordance with law. However, without making any observation on this point, I am of the opinion that prayer of the petitioner for expunging the condition i.e. the victim will not be married till the disposal of the case is required to be quashed and expunged from the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge that the victim will not be married till the disposal of the case is hereby set aside. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)