Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.339020 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 287 Year 2015 Thana PAROO District Muzaffarpur Vijay Kumar Yadav aged about 27 years Male Son of Mahendra Ray Resident of Mahamadpur Borhan P.O. Paroo District Muzaffarpur ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar 2. Kamini Singh aged about 25 years Female Daughter of Sri Naval Kishore Singh Resident of Thatiya P.O. Jasauli P.S. Kathaiya District ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State For the Informant CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh No. 1 Advocate Ms. Renu Kumari APP Mr. Priyesh Kumar Advocate Date : 16 08 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh No.1 learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Renu Kumari learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State and Mr. Priyesh Kumar learned counsel for the opposite party 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Paroo PS Case No. 287 of 2015 dated 17.12.2015 instituted under Sections 493 376 341 323 504 506 34 of the Indian Penal Code 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.339020 dt.16 08 2021 married the opposite party no. 2 in a temple on 06.04.2014 and had kept the opposite party no. 2 at a rented place and they lived together as husband and wife and thereafter on 26.04.2014 the petitioner went for training in the Army but kept the informant in a room at Muzaffarpur. Thereafter it is alleged that the petitioner returned and kept the informant at a hotel at Hajipur and then went to Ahmadnagar in Maharashtra for training in the Army and the informant became pregnant. Further it is stated that the petitioner kept her in hotel and came from time to time and on 31.07.2015 had called her to his house and she was assaulted by the accused persons and driven out and also threatened. However on 20.08.2015 she was called by the petitioner and kept in a rented room at Hajipur and used to send maintenance money to her but later stopped giving any money and also did not talk on phone 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is in the Army and thus has to keep going to his place of posting and that the allegations made are not correct. It was submitted that he is ready to keep the informant and the child with him with full dignity honour and security 6. On 13.07.2021 in view of the statement made by the opposite party no. 2 in her counter affidavit that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.339020 dt.16 08 2021 petitioner had married another girl namely Arti Kumari Baby the Court had asked learned APP to obtain the legible photocopy of the entire case diary of the present case as well as a detailed report with regard to whether the petitioner had married the other lady. The same has been submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police Muzaffarpur 7. When the Court asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to how on 13.07.2021 he had taken a stand that the allegation of having performed second marriage is incorrect and it is only the suspicion of the opposite party no. 2 as has been recorded at paragraph no. 8 of the order dated 13.07.2021 he submitted that such stand was as per his instructions 8. Learned APP placing the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police Muzaffarpur stated that the enquiry has revealed that the petitioner has married the said lady on 15.07.2016 and there is also a child born out of the wedlock 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no offence is made out under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as the parties were married to each other. Further he reiterated that the petitioner was ready to keep the opposite party no. 2 with him 10. Learned APP from the case diary submitted that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.339020 dt.16 08 2021 witnesses have supported the fact of marriage of the petitioner with opposite party no. 2 and in fact one of the witnesses on 17.12.2015 had stated that the parents of the petitioner had at that time taken a stand that the opposite party no. 2 had never been brought by their son to the matrimonial home but if the same was correct they would not have any objection to accepting the opposite party no. 2 as the wife of their son 11. On this when the Court asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to under what circumstances the petitioner married another girl on 15.07.2016 learned counsel for the petitioner had no answer 12. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that she has also been blessed with a child and though the petitioner used to send money earlier but now no maintenance is being given to her due to which she is in dire financial conditions and is unable to manage herself as well as the child having been deserted by the petitioner 13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds that from the conduct of the petitioner and the materials which have come during investigation as well as the report from the Senior Superintendent of Police Muzaffarpur Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.339020 dt.16 08 2021 the conduct of the petitioner does not inspire confidence. The fact of having performed marriage with the opposite party no. 2 has been found correct as also birth of a child from her and thereafter again the petitioner having married speaks volumes Further learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied that after sending money to the opposite party no. 2 for herself and the child the petitioner has stopped doing so. The Court finds his stand that he is ready to keep the opposite party no. 2 with him to be a hollow one as there cannot be two wives living in the same household and further the legality of marriage of the petitioner with the other lady is under question 14. Thus taking an overall view in the matter the Court is not inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner 15. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed 16. Interim protection granted to the petitioner under order dated 16.03.2021 stands vacated (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner was taken into custody under Section 493 IPC, “Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage”, section 376, “Punishment for rape”, section 341, “Punishment for wrongful restraint”, section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”, section 506, “Punishment for criminal intimidation”, section 34 IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”. This present petitioner is in connection with Paroo PS Case No. 287 of 2015 dated 17.12.2015. In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgment was given by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 16th of August 2021 in the case of Vijay Kumar Yadav versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.33901 of 2020, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Renu Kumari represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Priyesh Kumar represented as the advocate for the informant, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner married the informant on 6th April 2014 in a temple, and lived with his wife in a rented place, the petitioner later evanesced as he went for the army training while he kept the informant in a room at Muzaffarpur. When the petitioner returned he kept the informant at a hotel at Hajipur and again went for army training elsewhere and the informant became pregnant. The allegations against the petitioner are that he kept his wife at a hotel and called her from time to time to his house where she was assaulted by the accused persons and was also driven out and threatened. The petitioner used to send her maintenance money but later stopped giving her money and would not yield to communication. The counsel representing the petitioner held that since the petitioner was occupied training in the army and that was the reason for the frequent change in places due to the change in his postings and the allegations against him were falsely implicated. Further, the counsel held that the petitioner is willing to keep the informant and the child with full dignity, honor, and security. However, the informant made a statement in her counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner had married another girl, and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur submitted a legible photocopy of the entire case and a report regarding the petitioner’s second marriage. The APP placed this report before the court and revealed after an investigation that the petitioner has had a second marriage and there is also a child born out of wedlock. However, the petitioner on stand claimed that these allegations were incorrect and he was framed on suspicion by the informant and remained silent. The counsel for the informant held that even the informant is blessed with a baby, the petitioner used to send her money, and since he has stopped sending money the informant is currently facing financial instability and is unable to manage herself and her child after being deserted by the petitioner. The court concluded that “the Court finds that from the conduct of the petitioner and the materials which have come during the investigation as well as the report from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, the conduct of the petitioner does not inspire confidence. The fact of having performed marriage with the opposite party no. 2 has been found correct as also the birth of a child from her and thereafter again the petitioner having married speaks volumes. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied that after sending money to the opposite party no. 2 for herself and the child, the petitioner has stopped doing so. The Court finds his stand that he is ready to keep the opposite party no. 2 with him to be a hollow one as there cannot be two wives living in the same household and further the legality of marriage of the petitioner with the other lady is under question. Thus, taking an overall view in the matter, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.” Click here to read the judgment