Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.22287 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Pandeo Singh S/O Late Basant Singh R/O Vill-Ramchandrapur, P.S.- Pipariya, Distt-Lakhisarai 2. Bablu Singh S/O Pandeo Singh R/O Vill-Ramchandrapur, P.S.-Pipariya, Distt-Lakhisarai 3. Mantu Singh S/O Pandeo Singh R/O Vill-Ramchandrapur, P.S.-Pipariya, Distt-Lakhisarai 4. Sintu Singh S/O Pandeo Singh R/O Vill-Ramchandrapur, P.S.-Pipariya, Distt-Lakhisarai 5. Rajeev Singh S/O Pandeo Singh R/O Vill-Ramchandrapur, P.S.-Pipariya, Distt-Lakhisarai 6. Fantush Singh S/O Pandeo Singh R/O Vill-Ramchandrapur, P.S.- Pipariya, Distt-Lakhisarai 7. Arjun Singh S/O Baiju Singh R/O Vill-Ramchandrapur, P.S.-Pipariya, Distt-Lakhisarai 8. Umesh Singh S/O Arjun Singh R/O Vill-Ramchandrapur, P.S.-Pipariya, Distt-Lakhisarai 9. Deena Singh S/O Arjun Singh R/O Vill-Ramchandrapur, P.S.-Pipariya, Distt-Lakhisarai 10. Pappu Singh S/O Arjun Singh R/O Vill-Ramchandrapur, P.S.-Pipariya, Distt-Lakhisarai .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Kamal Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 14-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with a case registered for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioners being Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22287 of 2012 (2) dt.14-06-2012 2 / 3 2 variously armed kidnapped the son of the informant and took him away to some unknown destination. The motive assigned in the F.I.R. for the alleged kidnapping is old dispute between the parties. All the ten petitioners who have been made accused in the F.I.R. belong to one family. In course of investigation, the victim appeared and his statement was recorded by the learned S.D.J.M., Lakhisarai under Section 164 Cr. P.C. The victim made a contradictory statement to the F.I.R. The police did not find substantive material against the petitioners and several independent witnesses stated that a false case has been instituted against the petitioners. The informant is a notorious criminal. Upon conclusion of investigation, the petitioners were found innocent and they were not sent up for trial. In the final report, the Investigating Officer recommended for prosecution of the informant under [STATUTE] . The informant had already filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate differing with the police report took cognizance of the offence and, thus, the petitioners have reasonable apprehension of arrest. It is contended that in view of the police report, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and if released on bail, they are not likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners above named in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) only with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in connection with Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 117 of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22287 of 2012 (2) dt.14-06-2012 3 / 3 3 2004 subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. and also on the following conditions: (i) That both the bailors will be close relative of the petitioners who will give separate affidavit giving genealogy as to how they are related with the petitioners. (ii) That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court or to any other authority. (iii) That they shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then they will take prior permission of the court and in case of compelling and unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they will immediately inform the court and request that they may be permitted to be present through their counsel. (iv) That liberty is given to the State to make an appropriate application for modifying/recalling the order granting bail, if for any reason, the petitioners violate any of the conditions imposed by this Court. Sanjeet/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 182

Statute Text:
Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. Giving false information to a public servant in order to cause him to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of any person. Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause such public servant: to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.