The petitioners were released on bail after accusation of procuration of a minor girl under Section 366A IPC: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.371220 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 44 Year 2020 Thana CHHATAPUR District Supaul Pradeep Yadav Male aged about 24 years Son of Bulbul Yadav. Santosh Yadav Male aged about 28 years Son of Late Shanichar Yadav Both are Resident of Village Gwalpara Ward No. 4 PS Chhatapur District Supaul The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 377820 ... Opposite Party s Arising Out of PS. Case No. 44 Year 2020 Thana CHHATAPUR District Supaul 1. Vipin Yadav Male aged about 29 years Son of Mahaseo Yadav. Chandan Yadav Male aged about 30 years Son of Indradeo Yadav Both are resident of Village Gwalpara Ward No. 4 PS Chhatapur District Supaul The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 371220 For the Petitioner s For the State For the Informant In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 377820 For the Petitioner s For the State For the Informant Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh Advocate Ms. Anita Kumari Singh Advocate Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha Advocate Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh Advocate Mr. Md. Arif APP Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02 08 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.371220 dt.02 08 2021 2. Heard Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases Mr. Md. Arif learned Additional Public ProsecutorPS Case No. 44 of 2020 dated 23.02.2020 instituted under Section 366A of the Indian Penal 4. The allegation against the petitioners and others is that they had forcibly abducted the minor granddaughter of the informant for getting her married to co accused Rahul Yadav 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the grand daughter of the informant who had come to live with her grandparents fell in love with co accused Rahul Yadav and she on her own free will had run away with him and they had also married and because the petitioners are co villagers and were known to Rahul Yadav they have been made accused. It was submitted that the girl has returned and in her statement before the Court under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.371220 dt.02 08 2021 Procedure 1973though she has stated that the petitioners were also involved in her abduction but the story itself is self contradictory. It was submitted that she has stated that the incident took place on 21.02.2020 and she had been raped by Rahul Yadav and became pregnant two months prior to such date. However it was submitted that neither has she told anybody nor there is any evidence of any rape or her being pregnant for such a long period. It was further submitted that in her statement she has also stated that she was forcibly married to Rahul Yadav. Learned counsel submitted that had there been any role of the petitioners the girl would not have admitted that co accused Rahul Yadav had married her and most importantly there is not even a whisper of any wrong act or physical abuse against the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that from the statement of the girl it is also clear that she was taken to different places and even Nepal and thus it is not believable that while travelling to all these places they would not come across any person or police so as to enable the girl to raise a cry that she was abducted. Further it was contended that the girl having been properly fed and given a place to live is a clear indication that she and Rahul Yadav had married with consent Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have no other Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.371220 dt.02 08 2021 criminal antecedent. It was further submitted that the girl in her statement under Section 161 of the Code has stated that when Rahul Yadav whom she had married had heard about the present case he was bringing her with him on a motorcycle when the police caught them on the way. This learned counsel submitted is corroborated by the police as they have shown the place of recovery to be the National Highway and both Rahul Yadav and the girl were recovered together. It was submitted that there is no allegation of any misbehaviour or physical assault or abuse against the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that from the very circumstances of the case it is clear that there was love affair between Rahul Yadav and the girl as it cannot be believed that five persons would just bring a girl and force Rahul Yadav to commit rape on that girl and they themselves would not indulge in the same if at all the purpose was something immoral. Learned counsel further submitted that in such statement she has also stated that she was two months pregnant and had married Rahul Yadav but it was said that it was done under force which clearly is tutored. It was submitted that the main accused Rahul Yadav is in 6. Learned APP from the case diary submitted that the girl has stated that the petitioners were also party to her being Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.371220 dt.02 08 2021 taken to Nepal. However it was not controverted that in her statement under Section 161 of the Code she has stated that when Rahul Yadav heard about the case he was bringing her back on the motorcycle and on the way both of them were caught by the police. Moreover it was not controverted that during medical examination no sign of any rape has been found 7. On a query of the Court as to whether any sign of being pregnant has been found during medical examination it was submitted that the age opined is between 17 19 years and ultrasound was advised but no such report is available in the case 8. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that such incident is common and that because the petitioners were dominant in the village they had abducted with bad intention and the marriage was sham as ultimately she would have been sold for flesh trade. It was further submitted that both in the statement before the police under Section 161 of the Code and before the Court under Section 164 of the Code the petitioners have been said to be among the persons who had taken her to 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.371220 dt.02 08 2021 finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. From the allegations made and what has come during investigation there are indications that the marriage of the girl to Rahul Yadav who is still in custody may not be a forced one for the reason as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners five persons cannot bring a girl with bad intention to only allow Rahul Yadav to physically abuse the girl without themselves also taking part in the said crime and most importantly if at all the intention was only for immoral purposes there would not have been any occasion to marry which admittedly has been performed between the girl and Rahul Yadav 10. Accordingly in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs 25 000 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM VI Supaul in ChhatapurPS Case No. 420 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and further that the petitioners and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the petitioners andthat the petitioners shall co operate with the Court and police prosecution. Any violation of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.371220 dt.02 08 2021 the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure to co operate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds 11. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the 12. The petitions stand disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioners were arrested under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code, “Procuration of a minor girl, whoever, by any means whatso­ever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with the intent that such girl maybe, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”. This is in connection with Chhatapur (Rajeshwari OP) PS Case No. 44 of 2020 dated 23.02.2020. This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 2nd of August 2021 in the case of Pradeep Yadav and others versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.37123 of 2020, Mr. Kamal Kishore Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Arif represented as the additional Public Prosecutor, and it also includes the case of Vipin Yadav versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 37785 of 2020  Mr. Kamal Kishore Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Anita represented for the state of Bihar, Mr. Mohan represented the informant in both the cases the proceedings of the court were held via video conference The following are the facts of the case, the petitioners and others were accused of forcibly abducting the minor granddaughter of the informant and without her parents’ consent getting her married to a co-accused named Rahul Yadav. The counsel representing the petitioners held that the granddaughter of the informant came to live with her grandparents (informant) and fell in love with the co-accused and based on her willingness to elope with the co-accused and got married, the petitioners are only co-villagers and that’s how they know Rahul (co-accused) besides that they have no connection to this incident and they have been accused regardless. However, the minor girl has returned and made a statement before the court under section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that even the petitioners were involved in the abduction which was self-contradictory, she held that the incident took place on 21.02.2020 and was raped by the co-accused and became pregnant two months prior to the day of the incident regarding the same there is no evidence to prove the above. However, no physical abuse allegations against the petitioners, the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. In another statement made by the girl under section 161 Cr.P.C. the girl was seen with the co-accused bringing her on his motorcycle when the police caught them on the way which was on the national highway, therefore based on the circumstance it was clearly a love affair and it is unrealistic that five people would abduct a minor to marry the co-accused, however, the Rahul Yadav is held in custody and therefore the petitioners must not be held for no fault of theirs. The APP submitted that the girl according to her statement accused even the petitioners of being party to the crime. However, it is not controverted about her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and also there were no signs of rape according to the medical report examination. The counsel representing the informant submitted that this incident is common and the petitioners due to their dominant power in the village they abducted the girl with the bad intentions she could have also been sold. In both the statements made by the minor girl she has pointed to the petitioners for being party to the abduction and taking her to Nepal. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court held that “The petitioners will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the learned ACJM, VI, PS Case No. 44 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 (i) that the petitioners and the bailors shall execute the bond and give an undertaking with regard to the good behavior of the petitioners and (ii) that the petitioners shall co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution.”