- (1.)This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th August, 2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purulia in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2003 arising out of G.R. Case No. 338 of 2003 under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called IPC) now pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divi-sional Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter called S.D.J.M.), Purulia. By the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revisional application but also set aside the order dated 3.7.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. and directed that the victim girl Muskan Khatun @ Mujbuna be released on her own bond of Rs. 5,000/-. Being, aggrieved by the impugned order the father of the victim girl has moved this Court in this revisional application.
(2.)Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned senior advocate for the petitioner contended that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is improper and illegal as the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision preferred by O.P. No. 2 but at the same time set aside the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Purulia and directed release of the victim girl on execution of her own bond, though it was nobodies case that the victim girl ever prayed for releasing her on her own bond. In another revisional application preferred by O.P. No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2003 learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revisional application but also set aside the order of the learned S.D.J.M. dated 10.7.2003. According to FIR the victim girl was aged about 14 years only when she was kidnapped by the son of O.P. No. 2 and victim girl was a minor at the time of incident. But the learned Sessions Judge made out a new case by passing release order of the victim girl on her bond setting aside the order of learned S.D.J.M. where it was ordered by the learned Magistrate that the victim girl would be released in the custody of her father after the ossification test. Accordingly the order of the learned Sessions Judge should be set aside and the victim girl should be returned to custody of her father, the present petitioner.
(3.)Mr. Himangshu Dey, learned senior advocate appearing for O.P. No. 2 contended that the O.P. No. 2 being father-in-law of the victim girl has locus standi to claim custody of his daugther-in-law and his prayer was not considered by the learned S.D.J.M. In the ossification test the doctor opined that the victim girl is above 15 years but is below 17 years of age on 8.7.2003. In the FIR it was mentioned that the victim girl was studying in Class VIII but the certificate issued by Headmistress of Joypur Girls High School showing her date of birth according to school admission register reveals that victim girl is a student of Class IX. The victim girl being a Muslim lady and is above 15 years of age having attained puberty can marry herself and Muslim Personal Law gives her such permission. Therefore, though the victim girl did not pray for release on her execution of bond, the learned Sessions Judge made no mistake by passing order of releasing her on her own bond. In support of his contention Sri Dey referred to the decisions reported in 1994 C Cr LR (SC) 63 : 1980 Cr LJ 764 and 1998 Cr LJ 654.
;