1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38519 of 2009 RINKU KHAN, son of Jafarul Hassan, resident of village Matiyari, P.S. Bijaipur, District Gopalganj Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 11.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State as also the counsel for the informant. The petitioner faces prosecution for offence u/ss 366, 498 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code wherein there is a specific allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. which also stands corroborated from the statement of the victim girl u/s 164 Cr.P.C. to the extent that it was the petitioner who had kidnapped the victim girl for a period of more than six days. Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, would submit that absence of any physical injury on the victim girl and the circumstance that she was even free to contact his brother on telephone at the place where she was allegedly kept by the petitioner are by itself sufficient to show that the informant or the victim girl have come out with the actual true version. 2 According to him, there was an intimacy between the petitioner and the victim girl and in fact after the victim girl on this ground alone was divorced by her husband, the petitioner on being persuaded by the victim girl had taken her away with the consent of both her father, the informant and his daughter. Counsel for the informant on the other hand submits that the victim girl has no where accepted in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she had any relationship with the petitioner and infact she had also returned to her home after recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and was still apprehensive of evil design of the petitioner. This Court in the light of aforesaid submission would not go to the extent of accepting the aforementioned entire submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the victim girl has no where stated her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was in love with the petitioner and wanted to live with him but then as the victim girl has already 3 been recovered within six days and the police also has found the case true only against the petitioner, inasmuch as it has found no material against his brother and/or his father who were also made co-accused in the F.I.R., this Court would direct for release of the petitioner on bail subject to the condition that the petitioner in course of entire trial after being released on bail under this order shall not reside any wherein Gopalganj district including in his village Matiyari. Such imposition of condition by this court for grant of bail to the petitioner would not only be in the interest of justice inasmuch as the petitioner and the victim girl are not only the resident of same village but have their houses in close proximity and as such it would be necessary for both of them to stay separately till the conclusion of trial, for avoiding the allegations of tampering of evidence. The counsel for the petitioner also has no objection to imposition of such a condition for grant of bail to the petitioner but then he would only submit that the petitioner may 4 be given liberty to visit his village home/Gopalganj as and when there would be urgent need for the petitioner. That being so, this Court would direct the abovenamed petitioner to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Bijaipur P.S.Case No. 66/2009 on the following conditions: (i) One of the sureties must be either of the parents of the petitioner. (ii) Th0e petitioner on being released on bail shall straightway leave Gopalganj District and will reside at any place beyond a radius of 50 kilometers of his village Matiyari under intimation to the Officer-in-Charge of Bijaipur Police Station. (iii) In the event the petitioner would be urgently required to visit his village and/or Gopalganj Civil Court premesises for the trial, he would inform in writing to both the Officer In-charge of the Police Station where he would be residing 5 and the Officer In-charge of Bijaipur Police Station under which his village falls and shall return back to his place after staying overthere not beyond a day. (iv) In the event either of the Officer In-charge of the Police Station would report violation of the aforementioned condition, the court below shall immediately cancel the bail of the petitioner. Since the aforementioned condition is being imposed by this Court with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and would amount to literal extermant from his home district during the period of pendency of the trial, the trial court is also hereby directed to ensure that now when there is only one accused, i.e. the petitioner, and all important evidence therein would be only of the victim girl and the informant, the trial of the petitioner should be expedited and completed preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order in the light of assurance given by the learned Counsel for the informant present in Court who undertakes that both the informant 6 and his daughter would appear punctually and positively for their deposition on the date fixed by the court in the trial. If however for any reason, the prosecution itself would delay the completion of trial in such event, the petitioner will be at liberty to move this Court by seeking modification in the aforesaid condition. At the same time the trial court after concluding the trial would also submit its compliance report to this Court. With the aforesaid observations/directions this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/