Mohd. Salim v. State

1. By the present petition the petitioners who are husband and wife seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.247/2016 under Section 363IPG registered at PS Seelampur on 7^^ April, 2016. On the basis ofthe second statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Sections 365/366/368/376 IPG and Section 4 ofthe Protection ofGhildren from Sexual Offences Act(in short POGSO)were also added during the course ofinvestigation in the abovenoted FIR. BAILAPPLN.2670/2016&BAILAPPLN.2552/2016 page[1] of[3] 2017:DHC:8413

2. Learned APP for the State while opposing the anticipatory bail applications states that all other accused to whom further role have been assigned are in custody exceptMunir whois absconding.

3. The above-noted FIR was registered on the complaint ofthe father of the prosecutrix who alleged that her 12 year daughter had been kidnapped on 7*^ April,2016. Later he raised suspicion against Fida Hussain@Fidu S/o Banne Hassan, R/o Village Vasundhra, District Badaun, U.P. The prosecutrix was recovered from the house of Fida Hussain @ Fidu from village Vasundhra, District Badaun on 27^*^ April, 2016. On the same day her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded when she stated that 20-25 days ago in the afternoon at about 12 O'clock Fidu came outside her house. Munir arid Mushir were also standing there. They forcibly picked her and pushed her in a car. She became unconscious. They took her to the house ofthe present petitioners where she was kept. She further stated that after keeping her in the house for the whole day at 11.00 PM she and Fidu were made to board a train to Ahmedabad where Fidu expressed his desire to marry the prosecutrix. Fidu was intoxicated and when she started crying he brought her back. She further stated that Fidu committed no overt act or no wrong act with her.

4. Later second statement ofthe prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. In the second statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. though she stated that Munir,Mushir,Banne,Hussain,Salim and Bhuri i.e. the two petitioners herein, all ofthem said that they would get her Nikah done. Salim called on phone to Fidu and stated that the family members of the prosecutrix were looking for her and she should be dropped at her home. BAIL APPLN.2670/2016& BAIL APPLN.2552/2016 page2of[3] s Thereaftertheytried totake heraway. Whileleavingto Seemapurithey met the Police Officer who asked as to why she was shouting, however they stated that Fidu and the prosecutrix were brother and sister and since she was beaten she was crying. She further stated thatthey boarded the train for Ahmedabad at 11.00PM.

5. It may be noted that the supplementary statement ofthe prosecutrix was recorded on 7'^ May,2016 i.e. after 10 days ofher first statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Considering the fact that in the first statement the only role assigned to the petitioner is that she was kept in the house of the petitioners from afternoon till late evening and even in the supplementary statements the attribution to Salim, the petitioner herein and husband of Mainaj is that he told Fidu to drop the girl at her house as her family members were looking for her,this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. It is therefore directed that in the event ofarrest the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ^25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount subject to the satisfaction ofthe Arresting Officer/ SHO concerned,further subject to the condition that they willjoin the investigation as and when directed and will notleave the country withoutthe prior permission ofthe Courtconcerned.

6. Petitions are disposed of. Order dasti. pu4tGo MUKTA GUPTA,J. JANUARY 23,2017 'ga' BAIL APPLN.2670/2016& BAIL APPLN.2552/2016 page3of[3]