Petitioner granted bail after he promised to marry the opposite party No. 2 as it was found that he was the biological father of her child. The Court passed the directions to confirm that the family was living happily after 2 months of marriage. the Court also talked with the child to fully ensure that the petitioner married without any volition or pressure upon him. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Sanjeet Sada v. The State of Bihar and others[Criminal Miscellaneous No.78936 of 2019].
The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with the Case, instituted under Sections 341, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The DNA test of the child was conducted and showed up that the petitioner was his father biologically.
The petitioner took a stand and promised to marry the opposite party no. 2. The Court had made sure that such stand was not taken under any duress and it has been recorded that the stand was that on his own volition, the petitioner and his family members had agreed to get the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 married and to accept the child in the house. A check and affidavit were made which ensured that after around 2 months the family lived happily and reports were also called upon to check that the family was living happily. From the entire report and the statement of the persons, there is no indication that the parties have married and only it has been stated that they are living together as husband and wife.
The Court constrained that both Additional Public Prosecutor and the superintendent failed to notice and ensure compliance with the direction of the court. The court called upon the family and the petitioner submitted that they have been living happily married and the child also had a talk at the chamber of the judge and he was well satisfied.
The Court held that the petitioner shall be granted bail and fulfill the terms and conditions. The petitioner shall keep the opposite party 2 and the child in their matrimonial home with security, dignity, and honor. She shall be free to meet anyone she wants and shall be there with free will. The Court asked the Superintendent and Additional Public Prosecutor for an explanation of the misconduct and mistake made by them in the next hearing.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
