NIL KAMAL @ SONI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE perused the averments made in the writ petition and the copy of the first information report lodged by the petitioner 'sfather against (1) Rajesh Kumar Das, (2) Shiv Awtar Das, (3) Ram Dulari Devi, (4) Suresh Das, and (5) Bibha Kumari.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that she has, on her own choice and free will, without any coercion or undue influence, married Shiv Awtar Das. The petitioner claims to be about 19 years old; her date of birth being 5th September, 1989. The prayer in the writ petition is for direction to the police authorities to produce/release (1) Jhari Lal Das, (2) Uma Devi, (3) Vivek Kumar, (4) Ram Dulari Devi, (5) Suresh Ram, and (6) Liladhar Yadav, who are either accused in the F.I.R. or relatives of the accused persons. Some of these persons are said to have been detained by the police on 20th August, 2008 and the others on 21st August, 2008. From the available material, it transpires that Shiv Awtar Das, allegedly married the petitioner. As noticed above, he is an accused in the criminal case being Madhubani (Town) P.S. Case No. 211/08. He made an application for anticipatory bail before this Court being Cr. Misc. No. 32958 of 2008. This Court allowed the bail application subject to the condition that the accused Shiv Awtar Das appears before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani within four weeks from the date of order. On the date of appearance, Neelkamal @ Soni (present petitioner) was also directed to appear before the Magistrate so that her statement could be recorded under Section 164 Cr.P. C. The order further observes that in case the girl (present petitioner) makes the statement before the Court that she was major on the date of occurrence and had accompanied the boy (Shiv Awtar Das) of her own sweet will, the bail bond with two sureties will be accepted and Shiv Awtar Das be granted bail.

(3.) WE wanted to know from the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani and got her statement under Section 164. Cr.P.C. recorded. The answer was in the negative.