IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8825 of 2008 SITARAM CHOUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 13.5.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner prays for anticipatory bail in a case lodged on 25.10.94 under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. but several months after the lodging of the F.I.R. some of the witnesses had tried to falsely implicate him although he is full brother of the alleged affected person. It is further submitted by learned counsel that subsequently after investigation the Police has submitted final form in the case on 25.1.06 but the learned Magistrate rejected the same and cognizance has been taken in the present matter. It is submitted by learned counsel that prior to his death the husband of the informant had filed a Complaint case against this petitioner and others and that may have been the reason for subsequently falsely implicating the petitioner in the present case also. It is however pointed out by learned counsel that in the said case the informant of the present case who is the wife of the abducted person had deposed as witness no. 3 on 5.8.96 in which she has referred to the fact of the abduction of her husband but has not expressed any suspicion against this petitioner who was being tried in that case, - 2 - rather she has mentioned the fact that she has entered into a compromise with the parties for which she has also been declared hostile in the said case. Learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has been named by certain witnesses as early as in the month of April, 1995 and it is on the basis of such statements that cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate. It is further submitted that the petitioner had approached the Court for quashing of the cognizance but the said application has been dismissed and thus according to him the petitioner was not entitled to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed that the petitioner Sitaram Choudhary, in the event of his arrest/surrender in the Court below within four weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Tajpur Pusa Police Station Case No. 317 of 1994 to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur subject to the other conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)