IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8873 of 2010 Laxmi Devi, wife of Dashrath Ojha, resident of Village- Ojha Baraon, P.S. Murar, District- Buxar. ……Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar ……………………….Opposite Party. For the petitioner :- Mr. Jagdish Prasad No. 1, Advocate. Mr. Anirudha Mishra. For the Informant :- Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate. Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, A.P.P. ----------- 4. 29. 04. 2010. Heard the parties. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Nawanagar P.S. Case No. 31/2009 dated 18. 04. 2009, registered under Sections 366/120 B of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution case, one Archana Kumari, daughter of the informant was kidnapped by the accused persons including the petitioner by hatching a criminal conspiracy and till date she has not been recovered. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that allegation of kidnapping is mainly against co-accused Santosh Kumar Ojha and at best the petitioner can be said to be one of the conspirator, but there is no direct allegation about her participation in the act of kidnapping. When the matter was heard on 23. 04. 2010 a plea was raised on behalf of the petitioner that co-accused Santosh Kumar Ojha has solemnised his marriage with the alleged victim girl and they are living together at Delhi. 2 The aforesaid plea raised on behalf of the petitioner was refuted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. In view of claim and counter claim regarding marriage, it was agreed that on the next date of hearing i. e. today, the alleged victim girl and the informant shall remain physically present in the Court and the petitioner had undertaken to produce the victim girl before this Court. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 23. 04 2010, the informant is physically present in the Court. However, despite specific undertaking, the victim girl has not been produced by the petitioner. There is no material available on the record that the statement of alleged victim has ever been recorded either in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. or in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid background and in view of serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as also failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the direction issued by this Court, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed. The petitioner must surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and if so advised, seek regular bail. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)