IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28279 of 2008 1. RAJESH KUMAR DAS 2. Om Prakash Yadav Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR - - - - 4. 9.9.2008 Heard. The case has been registered on the written report of the informant who happened to be the father of the alleged victim under Sections 363, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code could be bailable but the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani, went on to dismiss the prayer for bail. The learned Judge has assigned reasons for the rejection of the prayer and that makes reference to different paragraphs of the case diary. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also resisted the prayer on the same grounds which were submitted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge during the hearing of the petition of these two petitioners for bail. However, by filing a supplementary affidavit the petitioners have brought on record the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal 2 Procedure and if one could carefully read the statement one could find that the lady stated that she herself left her father’s house, came to Sakri and telephonically informed and called accused Sheo Awatar Das to come to her and both went to Kolkata where they solemnized their marriage and from there they came to Patna and again got themselves married in a temple. The lady has stated that there was danger to the lives of herself and her husband from her parents and as such she wanted the security to be provided to them. If this is her statement in which she has stated that she herself volunteered for the marriage with Sheo Awatar Das, then, let the above named two petitioners be directed to be released from custody on their furnishing bonds each of Rs. 10,000/-( ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, in Madhubani Town P.S.Case No. 211 of 2008. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)