IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49689 of 2008 RAJ KUMAR MISHRA @ RAJU JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 16.01.2009 Heard Sri Amir Alam, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri Gurjesh Kumar, Advocate for the informant and Sri Dasrath Mehta, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner Raj Kumar Mishra @ Raju Jha is in custody in a case under Sections 366A & 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to the alleged taking away of the younger sister of the informant by a Bolero vehicle to some other place. The informant was at up stairs in his house and he could not know about it. He could learn only from his mother that the offence has been committed by some young men on the point of country made guns. It appears from the record as also from the case diary that the lady was traced out to Bagodar, somewhere in Jharkhand, probably in the district of Giridih, where she was taken into custody by police. At the same time the accused persons were also available to the police and the petitioner was taken into custody along with some others like his sister Babli and one Mantosh Kumar. - 2 - The statement of the young lady who is the victim in the present case appears recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. and she gives her version that she was at her village home when 3-4 persons came by a Bolero vehicle and asked her to accompany, else her brother would be killed and after pondering over the situation, she herself accompanied the accused persons by the particular vehicle. The lady was shifted into a bus and she was brought to Hazaribag and from there to Bagodar. She was confined in a hotel there. The lady stated that while the accused persons were way to take dinner, the lady picked up one of the mobile phones of the accused, so as to contacting herself to her family members at her village, but could not succeed and as such informed her friend, named, Chhoti that she was confined in some hotel in Bagodar and that her family members be informed about that. Later on, the police came and recovered the girl from the hotel as may appear from the police record as also from her statement. The case diary reveals that the accused persons on being arrested were questioned and they took a plea that the lady herself accompanied them out of her own sweet will - 3 - for some reasons as indicated in his statement and that also gets reflected in the statement of the girl recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. in which she stated that the accused persons stated to the police that the victim had accompanied them out of her own sweet will, whereas the victim contradicted that by giving statement that they were asking a ransom money of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs) to be paid by her brother. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the court to the above facts that the lady accompanied the petitioner and his family members to Bagodar. A series of photographs in Photostat copy form have been annexed to submit that the families were on very cordial terms and they used to visit each other on occasions of celebration and the relationship was such that it was not unusual for any family member of one family to accompany the member of the other family. It was contended that if the statement of the victim is considered with all care it may be found that the lady being honest both to her family and the person with whom she had some relationship appears changing the course of her statement at one point of time or - 4 - the other. Instances could be like picking up the phone and making call to her family and indicating the confinement to her family. It is contended that it is found from the record that the lady was fully aware as to where she was confined and who was accompanying her and as the police could not have gone there without further details. The contention further is that some of the accused persons have been admitted to bail. The informant files his appearance and has resisted the prayer for bail from the very first day it was listed for hearing by filing counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed today. The supplementary affidavit contains a report submitted by the police on the allegation that the petitioner had sent a threatening letter to the informant and that was enquired into and that was found as an act of the petitioner committed from inside the jail. It was contended by the learned counsel for the informant that the petitioner has been a man of criminal inclination having committed many offences and as such, there was a report by way of Informatory petition to the police station as may appear from the first counter affidavit filed by the - 5 - informants. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has read out the contents of the report to me, which has been relied upon by the informant to submit that it may not be a report acceptable to a court because the police officer making the report, has not followed the procedure, so as to finding out whether it could be the writing of the present petitioner or it could be of a person other than the petitioner. I have perused the record and annexures, which have been brought on it by the petitioner through his supplementary affidavit as also by the informant through his counter affidavits. I find that the lady was about 17 years of age and could be said to be a person, who could have attained the verse of maturity. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the change in attitude in modern persons, specially the young ones, change of the conduct as complained of may not look unusual. Young people take their independent decisions and may be that the lady, out of her own free will was accompanying the accused persons to Hazaribag and from there to Bagodar. It is the focus of her statement that the victim lady was - 6 - traveling with the accused persons for the reasons known to her. However, the court does not want to know the reasons thereof because it could be the primary duty of the trial court to ascertain its credibility. Regard being had to the above facts, let petitioner Raj Kumar Mishra @ Raju Jha be released from custody on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in connection with Matihani P.S. Case No. 69 of 2008. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)