IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42224 of 2009 DINESH KUMAR SINGH, son of Singhashan Singh, resident of village Baheri, P.S. Karamchat, District Kaimur at Bhabua Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 7.12.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the informant as also the State. The petitioner faces prosecution for offence u/s 366A of the Indian Penal Code with an allegation that he being a married man had kidnapped a minor girl with an evil intention to get married to her and that when he was apprehended he had also confessed to have kept the minor girl, the daughter of the informant, in the house of one Basant Paswan, whereafter the police is said to have gone and recovered the girl from the house of Basant Paswan. Mr. Bikramdeo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in no view of the matter the offence u/s 366A I.P.C. can be made out, inasmuch as the age of the girl as per her own statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is 16 years and that in her statement before the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. she had admitted to have an old acquaintance 2 and relationship with the petitioner and as she had gone in the company of the petitioner on her own sweet-will. He would, therefore, suggest that it would be at best a case u/s 363 I.P.C. which being triable by the Magistrate, would make the petitioner entitled for grant of bail taking into account that the petitioner has already remained in custody over a period of 2½ months (with effect from 18.9.2009). Counsel for the informant, on the other hand, having produced a copy of 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim girl would submit that even if the age of the girl is accepted to be 16 years, the petitioner being a married man having also a child from such marriage was not expected to kidnap an innocent minor girl and when there has also been a consistent statement of several persons that the petitioner is in habit of doing such things even with other girls, he should not be enlarged on bail, inasmuch as the informant and the family members including the victim girl are prepared to lead evidence and get the trial itself concluded at an early date. 3 This Court on perusal of the statement of the victim girl u/s 164 Cr.P.C. would find that there is a definite allegation by the victim girl that she was trapped by the petitioner for getting married and even the mother of the petitioner was a party to it. In that view of the matter, the age of the girl being less than 18 years, it would be immaterial as to whether there is any allegation of physical torture or rape or outraging modesty of the victim girl because the petitioner being a married man if he had already for whatsoever come into contact with the victim girl being less than 18 years of age, he was not expected to take her away from her village without consent of her parents. Thus, this Court would not be satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner that since he did not coerce the victim girl for physical relationship he would be entitled to be enlarged on bail. The conduct of the petitioner, as noted above, being a married man and yet making an attempt to entice the victim girl below 18 years of age with an intent of marriage with 4 her would make him liable for his being prosecuted. The petitioner is in custody since 18.9.2009 and therefore, this Court would direct the trial court to frame charges and proceed with the trial expeditiously so that the trial of the petitioner is concluded within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If the trial of the petitioner would not be concluded for a deliberate laches on the part of the prosecution he will have the liberty to move the trial court which then would record reasons for not concluding the trial within the fixed time frame. It is only thereafter the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. With the aforementioned observations, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/