The Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners held in custody under Sections 363, 366-A, 504/34 IPC: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65821 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 117 Year 2019 Thana MANSAHI District Katihar 1. Naveen Rishi aged about 29 yearsson of Firangi Rishi Firangi Rishi aged about 55 yearsson of Mangan Rishi Fuchani Devi aged about 50 yearswife of Firangi Rishi All resident of village Mushari Tola P.S. Mansahi District Katihar ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Bimal Kumar Advocate Mr. Anant Kumar APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 06 08 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioners on 02.08.2021 which was allowed 3. Heard Mr. Bimal Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anant Kumar learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State 4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Mansahi PS Case No. 1119 dated 14.11.2019 instituted under Sections 363 366 A 504 34 of the Indian Penal Code Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65821 dt.06 08 2021 5. The allegation against the petitioners and others is of abducting the 13 years old minor daughter of the informant with intention to perform marriage 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is the brother and petitioners no. 2 and 3 are the parents of Rikki Rishi and the fact is that Rikki Rishi and the girl namely Rabina Kumari had married in Court out of their own free will without any role or involvement of the petitioners. It was submitted that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 05.11.2019 and co accused Rikki Rishi was arrested from his house on 14.11.2019 itself and thereafter the girl has been recovered on 09.01.2020 from the house of one Vishnu Rishi resident of village Bari Didh Pakaria P.S. Hasanganj District Katihar and the petitioners have no connection with the said Vishnu Rishi. It was submitted that in her statement before the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) she has disclosed that she had love affairs with Rikki Rishi and had left her house on her own accord and had married Rikki Rishi in the Court and has further stated that later on she came to know that because of her age she could not have married and has returned. Learned counsel submitted that there is no allegation of any role or complicity of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65821 dt.06 08 2021 the petitioners but surprisingly on the next day i.e. 10.01.2020 in her statement before the Court under Section 164 of the Code she has stated that Rikki Rishi had forcibly abducted her and had married and she was kept in the house of his parents in Bengal for two months. Learned counsel submitted that there is no connection of the petitioners in Bengal and thus the allegation itself is unbelievable that they would live in Bengal for two months whereas the fact is that they were living in Katihar all the time. It was submitted that just because after recovery she went to her parents’ place a doctored and tutored version has been stated before the Court by the girl at the behest of the parents guardian Learned counsel submitted that co accused Rikki Rishi has been granted bail by the Court below on 23.06.2020. Further it has been stated that even as per the statement under Section 164 of the Code the allegations levelled are general and omnibus. Moreover the girl has not explained as to how she was recovered from the house of Vishnu Rishi who is resident of village Bari Didh Pakaria P.S. Hasanganj in the district of Katihar when she has alleged that she was kept by the petitioners no. 2 and 3 in Bengal for two months. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65821 dt.06 08 2021 7. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners were also involved in the abduction. However it was not controverted that the girl even in the statement before the Court has not stated that the petitioners were also involved in her abduction or there is any allegation of misconduct or abuse against the petitioners by the girl as she has alleged that it was Rikki Rishi who had abducted her and married her as per the statement under Section 164 of the 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds that from the FIR also the allegation made is that the abduction was for the purpose of marriage and the girl has also stated that co accused Rikki Rishi had abducted her and the recovery of the girl being from another person in the district of Katihar and the only allegation being levelled by the girl in her statement under Section 164 of the Code that too after being united with her parents that she was kept in the house of the petitioners no. 2 and 3 in Bengal without any allegation of any maltreatment or abuse the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre arrest bail 9. Accordingly in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioners be Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65821 dt.06 08 2021 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 6th Katihar in Mansahi PS Case No. 1119 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and furtherthat one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners that the petitioners shall cooperate with the Court and the police prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds. 10. 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 11. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J J. Alam 

Summary: The petitioner was taken into custody under Section 363 of the India Penal Code, “Punishment for kidnapping”, section 366-A, “Procuration of minor girl”, section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”, section 34IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.” This is in connection with Mansahi PS Case No. 117 of 2019 dated 14.11.2019. This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 6th  of August 2021 in the case of Naveen Rishi versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.6582 of 2021, Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anant Kumar 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 abducting a 13-year-old minor girl, the daughter of the informant to perform the marriage. The counsel for the petitioner held that Rikki Rishi is the co-accused and petitioner no.1 is the brother of petitioner no.2 and 3 who is parents of the co-accused, the co-accused, and the girl married in court out of their own free will and did not involve the family which is the petitioners. This incident took place on 05.11.2019 and Rishi was arrested on 14.11.2019. the minor girl was found in a co-villager’s house and the petitioners have no connection with this man. According to the statement made by the minor girl under section 161, Cr.P.C., 1973 she confessed she had love affairs with the co-accused and left her home on her own accord and marred him in the court, and when she realized she was underage she has returned. In her next statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that the co-accused had abducted her and married her illegally and she was held in custody in his parents’ (the petitioners) house for two months in Bengal, which is unrealistic because the parents resided in Katihar the entire time. The counsel further held that the co-accused has been granted bail and the allegations are general and omnibus and the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent. The APP held that the petitioners were party to the crime and helped the co-accused in abducting her, however, it was not controverted that the girl has not stated any allegation of misconduct or abuse against the petitioner and only accused the co-accused (Rishi). After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court held that “ The Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail. 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 satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, PS Case No. 117 of 2019, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 and further (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners, (ii) that the petitioners shall cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to the cancellation of their bail bonds. 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 the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner(s).”