IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31967 of 2009 Nagendra Patel @ Nagendra Prasad, Son of Late Khairan Patel, Resident of Village Khajuria, P.S. Sidhawalia, District Gopalganj. ----- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Suman Kumari, D/o Yogendra Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village Khajuria, P.S. Sidhawali, District Gopalganj, Bihar. --------- Opposite Parties ----------- 3 24.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as also counsel for the complaint informant and her daughter, the victim girl. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the prayer for anticipatory bail for offence under Sections 366(a), 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code has laid stress on the aspect that the recovered victim girl in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had openly admitted to have been not only married to the petitioner but also to be over-willing to live with the petitioner as a wife of the petitioner. Counsel would therefore submit that the present case of alleged abduction would not hold any ground and the petitioner would be entitled for grant of anticipatory bail especially when he has got neither criminal antecedent nor any disqualification 2 for getting married to the victim girl. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant would submit that such statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has lost its value in view of the subsequent application filed by the victim girl in the court on 15.10.2008 alleging that the earlier statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded under mental imbalance as also threat and coercion. He would further submit that the age of the victim girl being at best below 16 years as per school record on the date of occurrence, there would be no question of giving any consent as she was a minor on the fateful day of occurrence. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner would be entitled for grant of anticipatory bail only because the earlier statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 19.9.2008 still remains on the record and has not been recalled by the court. Merely because an application was latter on filed by the victim girl on 15.10.2008 after the father of the victim girl could procure custody of her daughter, the victim girl would not change the 3 veracity or correctness of her statement recorded by a court under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and if such statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is taken into account, it would be found that she while declaring her age in the court to be 16 years, which was later on in course of her medical examination was found to be 16 to 17 years, had admitted that she had been married to the petitioner and she wanted to live only with the petitioner and none else. It has to be additionally recorded that the victim girl in her marriage agreement dated 8.9.2008 had earlier declared her age to be 20 years and the school leaving certificate dated 22.6.2009 being heavily relied by the learned counsel for the informant is one of a date much later to the date of occurrence i.e. 20.8.2008. That being so, this Court, while recording the aforementioned findings only for the purpose of anticipatory bail, would find that the petitioner in the circumstance would deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, if the petitioner, namely, Nagendra Patel @ Nagendra Prasad surrenders 4 within a period of four weeks from today, he will be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in connection with Sidhwalia P.S. Case No. 81 of 2008, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Before parting with, this Court must make it clear that any observation made in this order will not be used by either party in any other co-lateral proceedings for any purpose including the custody of the victim girl. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)