The petitioner was taken into custody under Section 493 IPC, “Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage”, section 376, “Punishment for rape”, section 341, “Punishment for wrongful restraint”, section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”, section 506, “Punishment for criminal intimidation”, section 34 IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”. This present petitioner is in connection with Paroo PS Case No. 287 of 2015 dated 17.12.2015.
In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgment was given by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 16th of August 2021 in the case of Vijay Kumar Yadav versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.33901 of 2020, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Renu Kumari represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Priyesh Kumar represented as the advocate for the informant, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference.
The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner married the informant on 6th April 2014 in a temple, and lived with his wife in a rented place, the petitioner later evanesced as he went for the army training while he kept the informant in a room at Muzaffarpur. When the petitioner returned he kept the informant at a hotel at Hajipur and again went for army training elsewhere and the informant became pregnant. The allegations against the petitioner are that he kept his wife at a hotel and called her from time to time to his house where she was assaulted by the accused persons and was also driven out and threatened. The petitioner used to send her maintenance money but later stopped giving her money and would not yield to communication.
The counsel representing the petitioner held that since the petitioner was occupied training in the army and that was the reason for the frequent change in places due to the change in his postings and the allegations against him were falsely implicated. Further, the counsel held that the petitioner is willing to keep the informant and the child with full dignity, honor, and security.
However, the informant made a statement in her counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner had married another girl, and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur submitted a legible photocopy of the entire case and a report regarding the petitioner’s second marriage. The APP placed this report before the court and revealed after an investigation that the petitioner has had a second marriage and there is also a child born out of wedlock. However, the petitioner on stand claimed that these allegations were incorrect and he was framed on suspicion by the informant and remained silent.
The counsel for the informant held that even the informant is blessed with a baby, the petitioner used to send her money, and since he has stopped sending money the informant is currently facing financial instability and is unable to manage herself and her child after being deserted by the petitioner.
The court concluded that “the Court finds that from the conduct of the petitioner and the materials which have come during the investigation as well as the report from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, the conduct of the petitioner does not inspire confidence. The fact of having performed marriage with the opposite party no. 2 has been found correct as also the birth of a child from her and thereafter again the petitioner having married speaks volumes. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied that after sending money to the opposite party no. 2 for herself and the child, the petitioner has stopped doing so. The Court finds his stand that he is ready to keep the opposite party no. 2 with him to be a hollow one as there cannot be two wives living in the same household and further the legality of marriage of the petitioner with the other lady is under question. Thus, taking an overall view in the matter, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.”
Click here to read the judgment
