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

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).”

Click here to read the judgment


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *