Namita Mishra v. State

1. Bythepresent petitions the petitioners who are husband and wife seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 902/2015 under Sections 363/366 IPG and BAILAPPLNs. 2773/2015 &2774/2015 page 1 of[3] 2016:DHC:8221 Section 4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences, Act (in short the POCSO Act) registred at PS Uttam Nagar.

2. The prosecutrix in the FIR stated that she was married and residing with her husband and children. On 12^^ July, 2015 her elder daughter 'S' aged 14 years height 4 feet 6 inch had gone with the tenant namely Namita Mishra to the market to fetch vegetables at about 7.30 PM. After about 10 minutes she made a phone call to Namita Mishra but could not contact her. When she asked her husband Laxmi Kant as to where his wife had taken her daughter, her husband went for searching her however he also did not come back. Thus he expressed her doubt on Namita Mishra and her husband Laxmi Kant for misguiding her daughter and enticing her. On the basis of the statement ofthe complainant above-noted FIR was registered and during investigation, the minor daughter of the complainant was recovered from j Allahabad on 23 July, 2015 along with accused Prabhakant Mishra. Statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her MLC was got prepared.

3. As per the prosecutrix Namita Mishra did not take her to the market but sat in a bus to Jaipur and there handed her over to one boy named Kavikant Mishra and with her family went to Allahabad. Even Kavikant took her to the village of Aunty at Allahabad. Aunty wanted to forcefully marry the prosecutrix to Kavikant, when she informed her father who reached Allahabad and recovered her. As per the statement of the prosecutrix and her MLC, the prosecutrix was not subjected to any sexual intercourse. The main accused Prabhakant Mishra has already been granted regular bail. The petitioners have alreadyjoined the investigation. BAIL APPLNs. 2773/2015 &2774/2015 page 2of[3] p

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I deem it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. It is therefore directed that in the event of arrest 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 of the arresting officer/ SHO concerned, further subject to the condition that they will join the investigation as and when directed and will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court concerned.

5. Petitions are disposed of. Order dasti.

MUKTA GUPTA, J. AUGUST 16,2016 'ga' -/W. - JUdvitU DY] BAIL APPLNs. 2773/2015 &2774/2015 page 3of[3] 't § 6# & 7# $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2773/2015 LAXMIKANTMISHRA Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Chirag Khurana, Advocate.

VERSUS

STATE Respondent Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with SI Naresh Kumar, PS Uttam Nagar. + BAIL APPLN. 2774/2015 NAMITA MISHRA Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Chirag Khurana, Advocate.

VERSUS

STATE..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with SI Naresh Kumar, PS Uttam Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS.

JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER % 28.02.2017 Crl. M.A. No. 996/2017 (reduction of aiiiount of personal bond) in BAIL APPLN. 2773/2015 ' • \ Crl. M.A. No. 994/2017 (reduction of amount of personal bond) in BAIL APPLN. 2774/2015 By these two applications the petitioners seek reduction ofthe amount ofpersonal bond and the surety bond. A perusal of the status report reveals that even after the grant of BAIL APPLN. 2773/2015 &2774 Page 1 of[2] f. anticipatory bail by this Coiirt, the petitioners have not joined the investigation and their whereabouts are hot known. Further the petitioners are residents of out of Delhi. Hence no case is made out for reduction of the amount ofthe surety bond or the personal bond. Applications are dismissed.

MUKTA GUPTA, J. FEBRUARY 28, 2017 'vn' BAILAPPLK 2773/2015 & 2774 Page 2 of[2]