Vipin Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3885 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37123 of 2020
          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2020 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul
      ======================================================

1. Pradeep Yadav, Male, aged about 24 years, Son of Bulbul Yadav.

2. Santosh Yadav, Male, aged about 28 years, Son of Late Shanichar Yadav.

Both are Resident of Village- Gwalpara (Manjhaul) Ward No. 4, PS- Chhatapur, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 37785 of 2020 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.

2. Chandan Yadav, Male, aged about 30 years, Son of Indradeo Yadav.

Both are resident of Village- Gwalpara (Manjhaul) Ward No. 4 PS- Chhatapur, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 37123 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Md. Arif, APP For the Informant : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 37785 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, Advocate For the Informant : 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.37123 of 2020 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 Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP')

for the State in Cr. Misc. No. 37123 of 2020 and Ms. Anita

Kumari Singh, learned APP in Cr. Misc. No. 37785 of 2020 and

Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, learned counsel for the informant in both

the cases.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Chhatapur (Rajeshwari OP) PS Case No. 44 of 2020 dated

23.02.2020, instituted under Section 366A of the Indian Penal

Code.

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.37123 of 2020 dt.02-08-2021

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), though 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.37123 of 2020 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

custody.

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.37123 of 2020 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

diary.

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

Nepal.

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.37123 of 2020 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/- (twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like

amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM, VI, Supaul

in Chhatapur (Rajeshwari OP) PS Case No. 44 of 2020, subject to

the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further, (i) that the petitioners and

the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to

good behaviour of the petitioners and (ii) that the petitioners shall

co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution. Any violation of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37123 of 2020 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

petitioners.

                     12.     The     petitions      stand     disposed         of   in   the

           aforementioned terms.



                                               (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR
U
T