Alleged of taking away the informant’s wife under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code, granted bail on furnishing the grounds for failure of launching FIR on the part of informant: High Court Of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 365920 Arising Out of PS Case No. 318 Year 2014 Thana DESARI District Vaishali 1. Vinod Paswan aged about 30 years Male Son of Late Bindeshwar Paswan Resident of Dighi Kala PS Hajipur Sadar District Vaishali 2. Mahesh Bhagat aged about 40 years Male Son of Late Jhamlal Bhagat. 3. Amar Kumar aged about 25 years Male Son of Mahesh Bhagat Both resident of Mustafapur PS Bidupur District Vaishali The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh Advocate For the State Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 29 06 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Desari PS Case No. 318 of 2014 dated 31.12.2014 instituted under Sections 366 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.365920 dt.29 06 2021 4. The allegation against the petitioners who are close relatives of the wife of the informant is that they had taken away the wife of the informant and had also taken away gold chain worth Rs. 40 000 and Rs. 10 000 from a box of the mother of 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case is totally false as the wife of the informant was a mature lady and there was also a son and there cannot be any question of the petitioners having taken her away. Further it was contended that is also not believable that the petitioner no. 1 who is the brother in law of the informant i.e. the brother of the wife of the informant petitioner no. 2 who is the husband of the sister of the wife of the informant and petitioner no. 3 who is the son of petitioner no. 2 would go to the house of the informant and stay there for the night as there was no occasion for them to do so and at best they could have gone to visit the wife of the informant. It was further submitted that the falsity of the case would also be clear from the fact that the date of occurrence is said to be 05.06.2014 but no information or case was lodged before any authority and a complaint case was filed on 30.09.2014 i.e. after almost four months and finally the FIR has been lodged on 31.12.2014 Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were totally Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.365920 dt.29 06 2021 unaware of the pendency of the case as till date no steps have been taken against them either by the police or the Court so as to make them aware that such a case is pending and only recently when they came to know of the case they have moved for anticipatory bail before the Court below which has been rejected Learned counsel submitted that the informant till date taking no interest in the case also shows that the allegations at least as far as the petitioners are concerned is not true. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to order dated 30.06.2020 in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 1230 of 2020 of the Additional Sessions Judge III Vaishali at Hajipur by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners has been rejected to show that the same is only on the ground that the victim and her son have not been recovered. It was submitted that the petitioners have no concern with the affairs of the wife of the informant and she being a major there is absolutely no occasion for them to forcibly take her away and that they had no reason to commit such act. Learned counsel submitted that if the allegations were correct and Rs 40 000 worth gold chain and Rs. 10 000 cash were taken away by the petitioners then also it is surprising as to why no complaint was made to the police by the mother of the informant Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.365920 dt.29 06 2021 6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners are accused of taking away the wife of the informant and also that they were responsible for taking away of gold chain worth Rs 40 000 and Rs. 10 000 cash 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties 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 Sub Judge 16 cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 15 Vaishali at Hajipur in Desari PS Case No. 3114 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and further and further that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners andthat the petitioners shall co operate with the police prosecution and the Court. Failure to co operate shall lead to cancellation of their bail 8. 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.365920 dt.29 06 2021 action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the 9. The application stands disposed off in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioners were alleged of taking away the wife as well as her jewelry along with them. The petitioners tried forming the grounds that the allegations are false and contended that even in the matter of kidnapping there was no report launched in the police station by the informant. The Court after considering all the facts and circumstances allowed the bail application of the petitioners. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Vinod Paswan and Others v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36590 of 2020].  The facts of the case were that the petitioners have been apprehended arrest in connection with the Case, instituted under Sections 366 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the petitioners had taken away the jewelry of the informant’s wife and his wife as well. 
The narrative is bogus, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, because the informant’s wife was a mature lady with a son, and there was no way the petitioners could have taken her away. Furthermore, it was said that the petitioners would not go to the informant’s residence and spend the night there because there was no need for them to do so, and at best, they could have gone to see the informant’s wife. It was also argued that the case’s falsehood would be obvious from the fact that the date of occurrence was fictitious.

The petitioners were completely unaware of the case’s status, according to learned counsel. The informant’s continued lack of interest in the case, according to learned counsel, suggests that the charges are false, at least as far as the petitioners are concerned. The court’s attention was directed to an Anticipatory Bail Petition in which the petitioners’ request for anticipatory bail was denied, demonstrating that the rejection was based solely on the fact that the victim and her son had not been found. There was no justification for them to carry her away by force, and they had no reason to conduct such a crime. They claimed that if the claims were true, it is also strange that the informant’s mother did not file a complaint with the police.

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations shall be correct that are framed on the petitioners.

The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, 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…” The case was hence disposed of on the mentioned terms of the bail.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The narrative is bogus, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, because the informant’s wife was a mature lady with a son, and there was no way the petitioners could have taken her away. Furthermore, it was said that the petitioners would not go to the informant’s residence and spend the night there because there was no need for them to do so, and at best, they could have gone to see the informant’s wife. It was also argued that the case’s falsehood would be obvious from the fact that the date of occurrence was fictitious. 
The petitioners were completely unaware of the case’s status, according to learned counsel. The informant’s continued lack of interest in the case, according to learned counsel, suggests that the charges are false, at least as far as the petitioners are concerned. The court’s attention was directed to an Anticipatory Bail Petition in which the petitioners’ request for anticipatory bail was denied, demonstrating that the rejection was based solely on the fact that the victim and her son had not been found. There was no justification for them to carry her away by force, and they had no reason to conduct such a crime. They claimed that if the claims were true, it is also strange that the informant’s mother did not file a complaint with the police.

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations shall be correct that are framed on the petitioners.

The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, 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…” The case was hence disposed of on the mentioned terms of the bail.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The petitioners were completely unaware of the case’s status, according to learned counsel. The informant’s continued lack of interest in the case, according to learned counsel, suggests that the charges are false, at least as far as the petitioners are concerned. The court’s attention was directed to an Anticipatory Bail Petition in which the petitioners’ request for anticipatory bail was denied, demonstrating that the rejection was based solely on the fact that the victim and her son had not been found. There was no justification for them to carry her away by force, and they had no reason to conduct such a crime. They claimed that if the claims were true, it is also strange that the informant’s mother did not file a complaint with the police. 
The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations shall be correct that are framed on the petitioners.

The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, 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…” The case was hence disposed of on the mentioned terms of the bail.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations shall be correct that are framed on the petitioners. 
The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, 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…” The case was hence disposed of on the mentioned terms of the bail.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, 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…” The case was hence disposed of on the mentioned terms of the bail.