Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

Md. Sakil Ahmad vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 March, 2018

Author: Ashutosh Kumar

Bench: Ashutosh Kumar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                         Criminal Miscellaneous No.56644 of 2017
                  Arising Out of PS.Case No. -180 Year- 2017 Thana -SAKRA
                                    District- MUZAFFARPUR
                 =====================================
                 Md. Sakil Ahmad, S/o Late Shamsul Ahmad, Resident of
                 Village- Keshopur, P.S.- Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur.

                                                        ....   ....   Petitioner/s
                                            Versus
                 1. The State of Bihar.
                 2. Wasi Ahmad, S/o Late Md. Halim,
                 3. Md. Rizwan, S/o Late Md. Moin,
                 4. Wahab Wasi, S/o Md. Washi Ahmad,
                 5. Md. Kasif, S/o Nayar Ajam,
                 6. Md. Tabish, S/o Md. Farukh,
                 7. Md. Hasim, S/o Md. Mobin,
                 8. Md. Mobin, S/o Late Md. Wakil,
                 9. Amirul Nisha, W/o Md. Mobin,
                 10.Md. Sajid, S/o Md. Mobin, All resident of Village-
                    Keshopur, P.S.- Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur.

                                                 .... .... Opposite Party/s
                 =====================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     : Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha
                 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Surendra Prasad Singh
                 =====================================

           CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
                              ORAL ORDER

2   21-03-2018

The O.P. Nos. 2 to 10 were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur by order dated 15.06.2017 passed in A.B.P. Nos. 1119/2017, 1180/17 and 1181/2017 in connection with Sakra P.S. Case No. 180 of 2017 instituted for the offences under Sections 363, 366(A) and 372 of the Indian Penal Code.

The opposite parties are alleged to have taken away the minor daughter of the petitioner/informant for immoral Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.56644 of 2017 (2) dt.21-03-2018 2/3 purposes.

Before the learned Sessions Judge, the daughter of the informant/the victim appeared and disclosed that she is 19 years old and that of her own volition she married the O.P. No. 7/Md. Hasim at Assam. She also informed the Court that she was leading a happy marital life with O.P. No. 7. An affidavit was sworn by her that she had left her parental home on 18.05.2016 along with O.P. No. 7 and went to Assam where Nikah was performed. A copy of the Nikahnama was also annexed with the petition, seeking anticipatory bail.

The Court below, by also taking into account that the victim had filed a complaint case before the learned C.J.M., Muzaffarpur against her parents and others under Sections 376, 511, 307, 306, 338, 354, 506, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, granted anticipatory bail to opposite parties.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/informant has, however, submitted that the Court below was not justified in granting anticipatory bail to O.P. Nos. 2 to 10 specially in view of the fact that the date of birth of the victim was 15.02.2000 which was demonstrated before the Court below by virtue of the matriculation certificate of the victim. He has further assailed the order impugned on the ground that the Court below should have taken care to get the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.56644 of 2017 (2) dt.21-03-2018 3/3 Even if the matriculation certificate discloses the date of birth of the victim to be 15.02.2000, whereby indicating that the victim was less than 18 years of age on the date of the occurrence, this Court is in great dilemma to pass any other order, except confirming/upholding the order granting anticipatory bail. The purpose of investigating agency or the Court below to get the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is to ensure that the victim does not make any statement under fear or to pin her down with one statement in case she prevaricated. The statement about her being a major was made by her before the learned Sessions Judge and it can be presumed that the victim had made a correct disclosure without any fear or favour.

It appears that the petitioner/informant is not happy with his daughter for having performed marriage with O.P. No. 7 and therefore he has lodged this case.

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order granting anticipatory bail to the opposite parties.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Shageer/-

 U          T