The court found no prima facie case for kidnapping or abduction as the complainant consented to the adoption of his grandchildren, leading to the quashing of the bail rejection order.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 06.10.2023 passed in A.B.P. No.603 of 2023 by learned Sessions Judge, Chatra whereby and whereunder the prayer of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.180 of 2019 registered under Sections 368, 369 and 370 of the Indian Penal Code, has been rejected.

Facts of the case

2. The prosecution case in brief is that the son of the complainant, Rajiv Pratap and daughter-in-law Rinki Kumari, bought land in Village Serendih and built house in which they were running an English Medium School. The son and daughter-in-law of the complainant used to live there with their three children. Due to dispute between the complainant’s son and daughter-in-law, they both committed suicide on 11.08.2017 leaving behind two daughters Ritika Kumari aged 8 years, daughter Kavi alias Butter aged about 3 years and a son Shahil Pratap aged about 17 months. The complainant, after giving information to Ichagarh Police Station and getting the postmortem done, took the dead body of his son and daughter-in-law to his village Serendih and from there brought the dead bodies of his son and daughter-in-law to his home along with his grandchildren.

3. It has been alleged that the appellant Dhaneshwar Rana came to the house of the complainant and forcibly abducted complainant’s granddaughters and grandson from the house and took them away on a motorcycle along with an unknown person. When the plaintiff started searching for his grandchildren, the witnesses and some people told the plaintiff that the appellant Dhaneshwar Rana has kidnapped his grandson and granddaughters.

4. On 24.08.2017, the plaintiff went to the house of appellant Dhaneshwar Rana, but the grandchildren were not found at appellant’s house. When the complainant asked the plaintiff regarding his grandchildren, the appellant said that your grandchildren are at his in-laws house and he will bring her back in a day. Thereafter, the appellant did not hand over the grandchildren to the complainant by making one excuse or the other. The plaintiff was convinced that the appellant has sold his three grandchildren to some place and is avoiding the issue.

5. It has been alleged that the appellant has threatened the plaintiff to keep quiet and pay him Rs.10,00,000/- then only he will return his grandchildren. The complainant gave written information in Sadar Police station on 24.12.2017, but when no legal action has been taken by the police against the appellant, a complaint case has been filed.

6. Apprehending his arrest the appellant had preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Court but the same was rejected, hence the present Appeal.

Submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant

7. Mr. Shadab Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint case.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant is the grandfather of the children namely, Sahil Pratap, Ritika Kumar and Kavi @ Butter and was not ready to keep the three children with him. Therefore, the maternal uncle of the children took the responsibility of the children and with the help of one social worker he managed to keep the children at his place until he finds some better place or person who could adopt them.

9. It has further been contended that in presence of various persons, in the meeting of Panchayat, the appellant adopted the child, namely, Sahil Pratap and a formal paper of adoption was prepared in which the people present in the meeting put their signatures including the complainant.

10. It has been submitted that the complainant himself had handed over his grandson to the appellant by formal process of adoption at his village in front of various witnesses in a Panchayat meeting held on 11.08.2017 which was confirmed