Ranjeet Kumar Mehto v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

1. Byway of thepresent petition filed under Section,438 of theCode of Criminal Procedure 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') thepetitioner seeks grant of;anticipatorybail inFIRNo.382/2016 under Section.363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station, Ranhola, New Delhi. Status Report is on record; -, 2, Brief facts of the case are that vide DD no. 23A dated 22.05.2016 police received a complaint of a missing girl wherein the • complainant Siyaram stated that his daughter Savita is missing since 12.04.2016 when she went out of the house to play around 11:15 am and despite his best efforts to search her neither was she. found nor she returned home! The complainant gave description BAIL APPLN. 1895/2017 2017:DHC:8532 and details of her daughter to police for identification. Thereafter FIR dated 22.05.2016 was registered under Section 363 ofIPG. During the course of investigation the complainant informed that his daughter had been kidnapped by the petitioner with the -intention to solemnize marriage witli her. The complainant further informed that the father and uncle of the petitioner have also threatened, the complainant with dire consequences. Hence Sections 365/366/506 IPG were invoked. Subsequently in view of the •MLG, statement of the complainant; and documents of marriage, Section 376 IPG, Section 6 ofthe Protection OfGhildren - from Sexual. Offences Aet, 2012 and Section 9 ofthe Prohibition of Ghild Marriage Act, 2006 were also invoked.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecutrix got married to the petitioner with her free consent and as the same was not acceptable to the complainant, he has been falsely implicated by the petitioner in the present case due to family pressure; that the complainantwas against the said marriage / ' as the petitioner is a handicappedperson; that as they had no other. option, they went to Bihar and got married; that the complainant did not disclose the actual date of birth of the prosecutrix who infact was a major at the time of the marriage and also at the time of registration of FIR; that the alleged prosecutrix has given birth to a male child and has herself refused to return to her pateinal home; that the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in the present, case and is therefore praying for grapt of anticipatory bail. BAIL APPLN. 1895/2017, Page 2 of[4] *

4. The learned APP for the State opposed the bail application of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner does not deserve concession of bail as he has, not joined investigation till date andhas been purposely evading the process of law; that previous bail applications filed by the^petitioner have been dismissed by the Trial Court; that the aHegations- made against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature and hence his petition for grant of anticipatory bail be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. It has come forth.from: the perusal of record that in her statement ^ recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the daughter of the complainant who is alleged to have been kidnapped by the petitioner has herselfstated that she went to their village alongwith the petitioner to solemnize marriage with him ofher own free will and that her father/complainant has given a wrong date of birth to \ the police officials and got a false case of kidnapping registered against the petitioner. The complainant'ii daughter also refused to return to her patemar home and at present has been lodged at Nirmal Chaya Complex for girls in Tihar complex, Hari Nagar, New Delhi.

7. As per the report ofthe Medical Board of Deen Dayal Upadhayay Hospital, age ofthe complainant's daughter isopined as under:- "estimated bofie age is betyveen 17-20 years"., Further it has also been stated in the Status Report that "admission in School, and date of birth of Ms. Samsarn Kumari was also BAILAPPLN. 1895/2017. Page[3] of[4] f confirmed by Sh. Dev Narain Jha the then head master of the school wherein Ms. Samsam Kumari took admission in class 1 on ^ 20.09.2006 and her date of birth was recorded as 02.02.1998 which therefore means that the prosecutrix was above 18 years of. age (major) at the time ofregistration ofFIR.

8. Returning to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to the \. • ' ' - •: • followingconditions: ^ i) That the petitioner shall furnish apersonal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction ofthe SHO/Arresting Officer concemted; ii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the,investigation and make himself available for interrogation by police officer as and when required; 9., Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

10. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything.observed in the present petition shall not have any'bearing on the merits ofthe case duringtrial,.

11. Copy ofthis Order be given dasti, under the signatures ofthe Court Master.

DECEMBER 12,2017 //gr BAILAPPLN. 1895/2017 GRA SEHGAL, J Page.[4] of 4