The Court grants pre-arrest bail to the petitioner as he was arrested under Sections 366-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: High Court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.377020 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 213 Year 2020 Thana CHANPATIA District West Champaran Hinmanshu Kumar Gender Male aged about 21 years son of Narad Sah resident of Village Dumra Ward Number 9 Police Station Chanpatiya District West Champaran ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh Advocate Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 06 09 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Chanpatiya PS Case No. 213 of 2020 dated 16.05.2020 instituted under Sections 366 A 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 4. The allegation against the petitioner and others is that they had kidnapped the niece of the informant while she was going to her ancestral house with ornaments of the informant’s wife worth Rs.2 00 000 and cash Rs. 25 000 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377020 dt.06 09 2021 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the girl is major and that the story in the FIR is totally false for the reason that she was being taken care of and kept by the informant and thus she would not do such a thing by taking away the jewellery of his wife worth Rs.2 00 000 and also cash of Rs. 25 000 . However it was submitted that because the petitioner and the niece of the informant were in love with each other the informant being unhappy with such relationship had fixed the marriage of the girl with the brother of the step mother of the girl who was more than twice her age and thus to get over the problem she had run away and had married the petitioner in Durga Mandir Bettiah. Learned counsel submitted that during investigation she has stated that nobody had kidnapped her and further that even in her statement before the Court under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973she has stated that the story in the FIR is incorrect. Learned counsel submitted that the girl is now living peacefully and happily in the house of the petitioner as his wife 6. On 21.08.2021 stand was taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that he and his wife i.e. the so called victim girl would appear before the Court. In terms thereof the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377020 dt.06 09 2021 petitioner and the girl have joined the present proceeding through virtual mode along with learned counsel 7. On a query the girl submitted that she has been accepted by her in laws and is happy in the matrimonial home The petitioner also submitted that he would keep her in the matrimonial home as his wife and due place shall be given to her and that he shall ensure her dignity honour and security and shall take care of all her needs. Further he undertook that the girl would be free to talk to meet or visit any person she desires without any let or hindrance either from the petitioner or his family members. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid in the larger interest the Court is persuaded to allow the prayer for pre arrest 9. Accordingly in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs 25 000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge POCSO cum Additional District & Sessions Judge 6th Bettiah West Champaran in Chanpatiya PS Case No. 2120 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377020 dt.06 09 2021 the Code and furtherthat one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and the police prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. 10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions by the petitioner to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the 11. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J J. Alam 

Summary: The petitioner was arrested under Sections 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, “Procuration of minor girl”, Section 34 IPC, “Acts have done by several persons in furtherance of common intention” and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, “Whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either Punishment for description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five sexual assault. years, and shall also be liable to fine”. The petition is in connection with Chanpatiya PS Case No. 213 of 2020 dated 16.05.2020.   In the High Court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by Honourable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 6th of September  2021 in the case of Hinmanshu Kumar Versus the State of Bihar, [Criminal Miscellaneous No.37709 of 2020] Mr Arbind Kumar Singh represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr Jharkhandi Upadhyay, represented the State of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner along with others was accused of kidnapping the niece of the informant while she was going to her ancestral house with ornaments of the informant’s wife worth Rs.2,00,000/- and cash Rs. 25,000. The counsel representing the petitioner held that the girl is not a minor and she is above 18 years and the story which has been scripted in the FIR has been falsely indicated, the niece of the informant was being taken care of by the informant and therefore she would not do such a thing by taking away jewellery of his wife worth Rs.2,00,000/- and also cash of Rs. 25,000. The informant was unhappy and did not approve that his niece and the petitioner were in love because they had already fixed the marriage for the girl with the brother of the stepmother of the girl who was twice her age as the girl was uncomfortable with the same she had run away to marry the petitioner in Durga Mandir, Bettiah. The counsel further stated that after the investigation it was transpired that nobody had kidnapped her and even the girl made a statement before the Court under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where she held that the story mentioned in the FIR was incorrect. The counsel submitted that the girl is happy and living peacefully in the house of the petitioner as his wife. For further evidence of the same, on the 21st of August, the counsel along with the petitioner and his wife (also the victim in this case) appeared before the court on a virtual platform and held before the court that she has been accepted y her in-laws and is happy in the matrimonial home. The petitioner also assured the court that he shall ensure her dignity, honour and security and shall take care of all her needs. Further, he submitted that the girl would be allowed to freely talk, meet and visit any person she desires. The Honourable Court concluded that “since it is in the larger interest, the Court is persuaded to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.  The petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, POCSO -cum- Additional District &amp; Sessions Judge, 6th, Bettiah, West Champaran, in Chanpatiya [PS Case No. 213 of 2020], under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to the cancellation of his bail bonds. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”