Naveen Rishi vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3980 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6582 of 2021
            Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2019 Thana- MANSAHI District- Katihar
      ======================================================

1. Naveen Rishi, aged about 29 years (Gender-M) son of Firangi Rishi.

2. Firangi Rishi, aged about 55 years (Gender-M), son of Mangan Rishi.

3. Fuchani Devi, aged about 50 years (Gender-F), wife of Firangi Rishi.

All resident of village - Mushari Tola, P.S. - Mansahi, District - Katihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

      For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate
      For the State            :        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

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Mansahi PS Case No. 117 of 2019 dated 14.11.2019, instituted

under Sections 363, 366-A, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6582 of 2021 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.6582 of 2021 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.6582 of 2021 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

Code.

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.6582 of 2021 dt.06-08-2021

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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

6th, Katihar, in Mansahi PS Case No. 117 of 2019, subject to the

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

Procedure, 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 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

petitioner(s).

                       11.    The      petition     stands      disposed        of   in   the

            aforementioned terms.

                                                  (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

J. Alam/-

AFR/NAFR
U
T