IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26189 of 2009 1. Gurudeo Yadav, Son of Late Janki Yadav. 2. Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Kumar, Son of Sri Gurudeo Yadav. Both are resident of Village Basgarha, P.S. Kotwali, District Munger. 3. Ramasharay Kumar @ Ramasharay Kumar, Son of Sri Sakaldeo Yadav, Resident of Village Basamatiya, P.O. & P.S. Chaman (Lakhisarai), District Lakhisarai. ------- Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar ------ Opposite Parties ----------- 2 2.9.2009 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and counsel for the State. It is probably only in the State of Bihar that such offences are being committed where a boy after being kidnapped is forced to marry a girl against his wishes and that too by use of threat, coercion and force by the family members of the girl. Here in this case, the petitioner no.3 is said to have abducted the complainant, a boy whereafter the petitioner no.1 the father is said to have performed Kanyadan of his daughter with the victim boy, the complainant as is alleged in the complaint petition. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court should go only by allegation and look into the different 2 paragraphs of the complaint petition to find out that all the offences committed by the petitioners are bailable in nature and that the offence of Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code would not be made out against the petitioner no.1, namely, Gurudeo Yadav, are only minimizing the scale of offence committed jointly by the family members of the girl. A simple reading of the complaint petition would go to show that the complainant an employed boy, namely, Subodh Kumar working in the Home Ministry as a Constable, was trapped kidnapped by all the three petitioners in the vehicle of the petitioner no.3 the brother-in-law of the girl at Lakhisarai and taken to Munger in the house of the petitioner no.1 and was forcibly married to the daughter of the petitioner no.1. The victim boy was also allegedly forced to put his signature on blank paper, which now stands corroborated from Annexure-2, wherein, it is found that the marriage was performed on 2nd February, 2007 and an affidavit was sworn by the victim boy on 3rd of February, 2007 before a Notary Public, Munger. Swearing of affidavit in support of marriage by the son- 3 in-law having been married in the last night at least is unknown in this state and the obvious conclusion is that what has been said in the complaint petition prima-facie makes out a case of abduction and marriage of the victim boy against his wishes. That being so, this Court would find no merit in the submission of the counsel of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.3 have committed no offence. It would be, however, found that the petitioner no.2 is the son of petitioner no.1 and his complicity at least from reading of the complaint petition cannot be said to as grave as that of the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 inasmuch as there is no allegation of causing any injury on the person of the victim boy though the petitioner no. 2 is said to be armed with a revolver. This Court would also not be in a position to equate the case of Niraj Yadav who is said to have been granted bail by this Court on 29.5.2008 in Cr. Misc. No. 20406 of 2008, inasmuch as, it is the petitioner no.3 who is primarily responsible for abduction and 4 kidnapping of the complainant along with petitioner no.1 for forcibly getting his daughter married, whereas the two others including Niraj and the petitioner no. 2 were only said to have extended a helping hand. That being so, this Court would direct for release of the petitioner no.2, namely, Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Kumar on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in connection with Complaint Case No. 35C of 2007. However, the prayer for bail of the petitioner nos. 1 & 3 namely, Gurudeo Yadav and Ramasharay Kumar Yadav @ Ramasharay Kumar is hereby rejected. The trial court is directed to ensure that the trial against the petitioners is taken up out of turn and is concluded within a period of one year from today. If the trial is not concluded within a period of one year, the petitioner nos. 1 & 3 will have liberty initially to move before the court below which will record reasons for not concluding the 5 trial and only thereafter, both of them can move this Court with a prayer for grant of bail in the present case. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)