Stealing a minor’s innocence by abducting her forcibly from her home: Patna High Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 354820 Arising Out of PS Case No. 142 Year 2020 Thana SITAMARHI District Sitamarhi 1. Jai Kishore @ Jai Kishore Singh Male aged about 40 years Son of Late Chandeshveri Prasad Singh 2. Mausam Devi @ Masum Kumari @ Pooja Kumari Female aged about 25 years wife of Jai Kishore @ Jai Kishore Singh Both Resident of Village Ratanpur Ward No. 13 PS Majorganj District Sitamarhi at present residing at Ward No. 1 Vinama Tola Mehsaul Pashchimi PS Sitamarhi District Sitamarhi The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s For the Petitioner s For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh Advocate Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey APP ... Opposite Party s ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 29 06 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’ for the State 3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Sitamarhi PS Case No. 1420 dated 29.02.2020 instituted under Sections 363 366A and 372 34 of the Indian Penal Code 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were party to the abduction of the minor grand daughter of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.354820 dt.29 06 2021 informant and it is alleged that the same was for the purpose of immoral trafficking or to kill her 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the sister of Satyam Kumar and petitioner no. 2 is the sister of Satyam Kumar and they have no role in the affairs of Satyam Kumar as the main allegation is against him. It was submitted that Satyam Kumar and the girl were in love and that Satyam Kumar used to visit the house of the informant without any objection. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have no concern with the affairs of Satyam Kumar and have no criminal antecedent 6. Learned APP submitted that the girl after having been recovered has recorded her statement before the Court under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in which she has clearly stated that the petitioners were also party to her abduction when she was forcibly taken away from her house. It was submitted that the role of the family members of the boy is always there as without their support no person would be able to manage such forced abduction with ulterior motives. It was further submitted that the girl being a minor the petitioners being adults and mature persons and being the sister and brother in law of Satyam Kumar it was their responsibility to have intervened and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.354820 dt.29 06 2021 prevented such abduction of a minor girl knowing full well the consequences and not doing so clearly indicates that they had an active role in the occurrence 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court is not inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioners 8. Accordingly the application stands dismissed. 9. However in view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners it is observed that in the event the petitioners appear before the Court below and pray for bail the same shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the present order (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code which is a central government Act deals with kidnapping which is a non-bailable offence. Section 366 (A) of the Indian Penal Code states that “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 intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable.” The punishment for the same is imprisonment extending up to 10 years along with a fine. Section 372 of the Indian Penal Code says that, “Whoever sells, lets to hire, or otherwise disposes a person under the age of eighteen years with intent that such person shall at any age be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose, or knowing it to be likely that such person will at any age be shall be punished.” The punishment for this section includes imprisonment up to 10 years along with fine. A single bench comprising of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah adjudicating in the matter of Jai Kishore Kumar &amp; ors v The State of Bihar (CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 35482 of 2020) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 363, 366(A) and 373 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh represented the petitioners and Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey referred to as APP (Additional Public Prosecutor) represented the State. This case was in connection with the arrest in the Sitamarhi PS Case No. 142 of 2020 dated 29.02.2020. Satyam Kumar was in relationship with the minor and they were in love. He even used to visit the house of the informant, to which no objections were raised.  The petitioners were alleged that they were party to the process of abduction of the grand daughter of the informant who was a minor. They alleged that she was abducted for the purposes of either killing her or for immoral trafficking. To this, the petitioners representator submitted the fact that Petitioner number 1 (Jai Kishore Kumar) who is the husband of the sister of Satyam Kumar and Petitioner number 2 (Mausam Devi) is the sister of Satyam Kumar and that they have no role in the affair of Satyam Kumar and since the allegation was against Satyam Kumar. The learned counsel submitted that there was no criminal antecedent as they had no concern with the affairs of Satyam Kumar. The APP in response stated that when the girl was recovered, her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded before the court, in which she clealy stated that the petitioners were a party to her abduction. She was with force taken far away from her house. The reasoning given was that abducting someone with such force would require the support of family and hence, they had a role to play in the process of abduction of the minor girl.