Judgment :- (1) THIS revision being C. R. R. 3061 of 2007 is directed against the order dated 18. 8. 2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, arambagh rejecting the petitioners prayer for release on personal bond in connection with G. R. Case No. 303 of 2007 arising out of Arambagh P. S. Case No. 133 dated 7. 8. 2007 under Section 363/365/120b of the Indian Penal code. (2) ON the complaint of the father of the petitioner Sri Debasish Panja alleging that one Rajib Singha Roy enticed away the petitioner, a minor and confined her with some ulterior motive a case being Arambagh P. S. Case. 133 dated 7. 8. 2007 under Section 363/365/120b, I. P. C. was started against the said Rajib Singha Roy and others and subsequently, the petitioner was recovered and produced before the learned Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, arambagh. The petitioner alleging that she was aged more than 18 years and she was never enticed away by the accused and she wanted to be released on her own bond filed an application before the learned Magistrate. But learned magistrate did not release her on personal bond and detained her and passed order for detention in the safe custody at Arambagh Correctional Home and the petitioner is still being detained. (3) BEING aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magistrate the present criminal revision has been filed. (4) IT has been contended by the learned lawyer for the petitioner that the petitioner is a major girl and ossification test held in respect of petitioner also shows that her age was between 18 or 19 years but the I. O. seized the birth certificate showing date of birth of the petitioner as 26. 10. 89 i. e. that the petitioner is under age of 18 years. 10. 89 i. e. that the petitioner is under age of 18 years. (5) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is major and even if it is assumed that there are a few days left to attain majority according to Indian Majority Act still then the fact remains that she is married wife of the accused Rajib and as per provisions of Section 6 (c) of the Hindu minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the husband i. e. the accused rajib Singha roy is the natural guardian of the petitioner and the question of illegal detention of the petitioner does not arise and she left her house and joined the company of the accused on her own accord. There is no case of abduction and the detention of the petitioner in safe custody or in any rescue home is not warranted by law. The petitioner is entitled to go to her husband and to enjoy her marital life and the question of kidnapping does not arise. (6) IT has further been contended by the learned lawyer for the petitioner that even if it is assumed that the petitioner has not attained the age of majority i. e. 18 years and she has few days to complete the age of majority and the marriage of the petitioner being under 18 years of age is in contravention of provision of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act still then the said marriage is not void ab initio. The petitioner is entitled to move freely and to go to her husband and she cannot be detained in custody. (7) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that there is no law authorising the petitioners detention in safe custody or in Home and she should be released forthwith. (8) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance upon the ruling of this High Court reported in (2005)4 Cal HN at page 308, decision of allahabad High Court reported in 2003 Cr LJ at page 3438 and also the decision of Delhi High Court reported in (1998)3 Crimes at page 541. (8) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance upon the ruling of this High Court reported in (2005)4 Cal HN at page 308, decision of allahabad High Court reported in 2003 Cr LJ at page 3438 and also the decision of Delhi High Court reported in (1998)3 Crimes at page 541. (9) LEARNED Counsel for the State has contended that the birth certificate being the best proof about the age of the petitioner must prevail upon the ossification test and as per birth certificate the petitioner is minor and so there is a case of kidnapping but learned Counsel for the State contends that even if the birth certificate is considered the petitioner will attain the age of majority within few days of this month and at this stage the question of detention of the petitioner in safe custody should be considered and she may be released from the custody on execution of bond. (10) IN the case reported in (2005)4 Cal HN at page 308 it has been laid down that minority of the victim at the time of marriage would not make the marriage void or voidable. The contravention of Section 5 (iii) of the Hindu marriage Act or Child Marriage Restraint Act do not make the said marriage void. Such marriage can only lead to punishment as provided in the Act. If the petitioner as father challenges the validity of the marriage of his daughter, i. e. the victim, he has to approach proper Civil Court and this Court cannot decide whether marriage of the victim either void or voidable or punishable, It was further held that after marriage the husband is the guardian of Hindu girl even if the said girl is minor and has not completed the requisite age as provided in section 5 (iii) of the H. M. Act. (11) IT was further held in that case that speaking practically, there is no law which permits Court to give direction for keeping even a minor in Nari niketan or any home against her will. Learned SDJM cannot confine the victim in Government Rescue Home or Vidyasagar Balika Bhawan against her wishes. (11) IT was further held in that case that speaking practically, there is no law which permits Court to give direction for keeping even a minor in Nari niketan or any home against her will. Learned SDJM cannot confine the victim in Government Rescue Home or Vidyasagar Balika Bhawan against her wishes. (12) IT was further held in that case of Dhuronidhur Ghosh reported in ilr 17 Calcutta 299 that the husband of Hindu girl of fifteen is her lawful guardian, and if the father of the minor takes away the girl from her husband without consent of the husband such taking away amounts to kidnapping from lawful guardianship even though the father may have had no criminal intention in so doing. (13) IN the case before the Allahabad High Court allegation of the father of petitioner was that his daughter was abducted and wrongfully confined. Petitioner however deposed before the Magistrate that she was married with accused on her own accord. Ossification test showed that she was not minor. She was not an accused of any offence. In such circumstance, the High Court held her detention in Nari Niketan improper and passed order for her release forthwith. (14) IN the case before Delhi High Court prosecutrix was between 1. 6 and 17 years of age and in her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C. it was stated that she was married with the accused and was pregnant from him and wanted to give birth to child. Wishes of prosecutrix who married the accused and was carrying child of accused acquired greater importance and the Magistrate was given liberty to review the matter of detention of the victim girl in Nari Niketan. (15) IT is undisputed that FIR was lodged on 7. 8. 2007 by the father of the victim girl alleging that his daughter aged 17 years was kidnapped by accused Rajib Singha Roy and she was kept detained with an ulterior motive of selling her and a case under Section 363/365/120b, I. P. C. was started on that date. (16) DURING investigation the victim girl, the present petitioner was recovered and produced before the Magistrate. On 8. 8. 2007 her mother prayed for her custody. (16) DURING investigation the victim girl, the present petitioner was recovered and produced before the Magistrate. On 8. 8. 2007 her mother prayed for her custody. The victim girl also filed a petition stating that she is major being aged more than 18 years and the accused did not kidnap her and she prayed for her release on execution of her own bond. The prayer of victim girl was rejected as no ossification test report was received and she was kept in safe custody in Arambagh Correctional Home. On 10. 8. 2007, the victim girl filed another petition for being released on P. R. bond. The mother of victim girl filed absent petition along with xerox copies of certificate of birth, admit card of west Bengal Board of Secondary Education and 13. 8. 2007 was fixed for hearing the petition filed by the parties and production of victim girl. On 13. 8. 2007, ossification test report disclosing that the age of the victim girl was between 18 to 19 years was placed before the learned Magistrate and seizure list was placed from which it was transpired that I. O. seized one birth certificate showing the date of birth of Payel Panja was 26th October 1989 indicating that age of the victim girl was under 18 years. The matter was adjourned in view of the petition of the mother of the victim girl for re-ossification test by any other radiologist of Arambagh Sub-divisional Hospital and 17. 8. 2007 was fixed for production of victim girl from safe custody and for hearing both the petitions. During hearing of the instant revision the petitioner, victim girl has filed the certified copy of the petition dated 20. 8. 07 which shows that the victim girl was locked in love with the accused Rajib Singha Roy and then she took Rajib voluntarily and married him and her father filed the instant case on 7. 8. 2007 and victim girl was detained in Arambagh Jail since 8. 8. 2007. She was not willing to go with her parents. She was also not willing to go to any Home. She is major. She wanted to be released on her own bond but her prayer for release on bond was rejected. Victim girl cannot be released to the custody of her parents. On 18. 8. 8. 2007. She was not willing to go with her parents. She was also not willing to go to any Home. She is major. She wanted to be released on her own bond but her prayer for release on bond was rejected. Victim girl cannot be released to the custody of her parents. On 18. 8. 2007, victim girls prayer for release was rejected and by filing such petition victim girl prayed for staying the operation of the order dated 18. 8. 2007. (17) IT further appears that on 20. 8. 2007 victim girl was produced from safe custody and Debasish Panja, the father of the victim girl filed Zimma bond of Rs. 10,000/-for taking the victim girl to his custody and the victim girl filed another petition. In open Court victim girl expressed her unwillingness to go with her father as she was apprehending torture by her father after going to his custody and learned Magistrate did not accept Zimma Bond of her father debasish Panja and passed the order for keeping the victim girl at Liluahs home, District of Howrah for her safe custody. Then the instant petition under section 401 read with Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for release of the victim girl, petitioner on her own bond. (18) WITHIN the four corners of her petition for release dated 8. 8. 2007 before the learned Magistrate the victim girl has not made any whisper that she was married to the accused Rajib Singha Roy. She did not claim that she wanted to go to her husband. She wanted release from the custody on her own bond. The orders dated 9. 8. 2007, 10. 8. 2007 do not show that the victim girl contended that she was married with accused Rajib. It appears that on 20. 8. 2007 in the petition the victim girl contended that she was locked in love with accused Rajib Singha Roy and she took Rajib voluntarily and married him despite the objection of her parents and her father started the present police case under Section 363/365/120b, I. P. C. There is no document to show that the victim was married with the accused Rajib Singha Roy. (19) THE ossification test report shows that the Radiologist was of opinion that age of the victim girl was between 18 to 19 years on the date of examination i. e. on 10. 8. (19) THE ossification test report shows that the Radiologist was of opinion that age of the victim girl was between 18 to 19 years on the date of examination i. e. on 10. 8. 2007 whereas the birth certificate shows that victim girl was born on 26. 10. 89. It is settled law that ossification test is not a sure test and birth certificate is the best evidence. As per birth certificate the victim girl was minor on the date of occurrence. Even she is minor at present as she has not attended the age of 18 years. This is a case under Section 363/365/120b, I. P. C. When there is no document of marriage between the parties, the allegation of kidnapping of the victim girl by the accused out of lawful guardianship cannot be ignored. The father is the lawful guardian of the minor victim girl. The victim girl was recovered by the police. So, at this stage the case under Section 363, i. P. C. cannot be thrown out (20) AS the victim girl, petitioner has not attained the age of majority and there is no proof of her marriage with accused Rajib Singha Roy and she has refused to go to the custody of her father and there is no prayer for return of the petitioner to the custody of Rajib Singha Roy provided he is. legally married husband of the petitioner and the petitioner is a young lady and so in the interest of safety and security of the petitioner who is still minor she should be kept somewhere and she should not be thrown out in the street. So, keeping the petitioner in a rescue Home for the girls in the interest of safely of the petitioner who is a minor does not appear to be unjustified. The simple reason that she will attend the age of majority within a few days of this month is not sufficient to release her on own bond sacrificing the safety and security of a young girl who is still a minor. (21) THE facts and circumstances of this case are not similar to the facts and circumstances of the case reported in (2005)4 Cal HN at page 308. (21) THE facts and circumstances of this case are not similar to the facts and circumstances of the case reported in (2005)4 Cal HN at page 308. The facts and circumstances of the case reported in (1998)3 Crimes at page 541 and 2003 Cr LJ at page 3438 are also not similar to the facts and circumstances of this case. (22) IT is undisputed that the victim girl has been kept in children Home for girls at Liluah, District Howrah. It is true that there is no law which permits the learned Magistrate to give direction for keeping the minor victim girl, petitioner in the children Home for girls at Liluah but it appears that the petitioner who has not attained the age of majority falls within the definition of child in need of care and protection in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000 and under Section 34 of the said Act the State Government may establish and maintain either by itself or in association with the voluntary organisations, childrens homes, in every district or group of districts, as the case may be, for the reception of child in need of care and protection during the pendency of any inquiry and subsequently for their care, treatment, education, training, development and rehabilitation. Such children Home for girls has been established by the State Government at Liluah, District Howrah for the purpose of the said Act under Section 34 of the Juvenile Justice Act. (23) UNDER Section 29 of the Act Child Welfare Committees for exercising the powers and discharge of the duties conferred on such committees in relation to child in need of care and protection of the Act should be constituted. (24) UNDER Section 31, the Committee is a final authority to dispose of cases for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of the children as well as to provide their basic needs and protection of human rights. (25) UNDER Section 32 any child in need of care and protection may be produced by certain persons including any police officer and the child shall be produced before the Committee without any loss of time but within a period of 24 hours excluding the time necessary for the journey. (26) RULE 25 of West Bengal Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Rules, 2003 deal with the matter or production of a child before the committee. (26) RULE 25 of West Bengal Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Rules, 2003 deal with the matter or production of a child before the committee. Under sub-rule 7 of Rule 25 the Committee shall make arrangement to send the child to designated place of safety with age and sex appropriate facilities, pending the inquiry. (27) THUS it appears that there is law authorising reception of the victim girl who falls within the expression of child in need of care and protection in the Home established under Section 34. (28) IN this case, the victim girl who is a minor and falls within the definition of the child in need of care and protection has been kept in the children Homes for girts at Liluah established by the Government under Section 34 of the Act and she has been kept there. It is true that the learned Magistrate concerned had no power under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000 read with relevant rules authorising reception of the victim girl in the said Home at Liluah and action in the matter is to be taken by the concerned Committee under the Act but when she has been kept in the Home meant for the shelter of the child in need for care and protection, want of jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate in the matter is not fatal and the same may be regularised if not regularised by the concerned committee already under the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act. 2000. The provisions of Act and Rules were not brought to the attention of this Court at the time of passing the order in the case of Krishna prasad Paul v. State of West Bengal reported in (2005)4 Cal HN at page 308 and accordingly the same were not considered. (29) UNDER the circumstances, the petitioner, victim girl who is still a minor cannot be allowed to be released on her own bond and the order of learned Magistrate of disallowing her prayer cannot be interfered. (30) THE instant petition being C. R. R. 3061 of 2007 stands dismissed accordingly.