IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26885 of 2008 HARE RAM YADAV & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 23.09.2008 Heard. The cased is under Section 366 and 372 IPC. The victim Meera Devi is the wife of informant Shiv Muni Yadav who stated in the FIR that his wife had expressed desire for going to her Maika and that he had told her that after some time he will take her to her Maika but the petitioner Bimal Yadav and co-accused Champa Devi persuaded her (victim) that they will take her to her Maika and took her away with them but she was not taken to her Maika and further allegation of the informant is that the accused persons sold his wife, the victim away and, thus, they ruined his conjugal life. The informant also stated that the victim also was of little unsound mind and the accused persons became successful in enticing her away due to this. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been implicated on suspicion. Learned A.P.P. refers to Para-7 of the case 2 diary where witness Shila Devi stated that while she was carrying meal in for her husband, she saw that petitioner Bimal Yadav and Champa Devi were going with the victim and that they all boarded on a boat and crossed the river. In Para-8 witness Manoj Yadav has stated that he had seen in village that petitioner Manoj and co-accused Champa were going with the victim. In Para-9 witness Mohan Yadav has also stated that he had seen the petitioner Bimal Yadav and co-accused Champa Devi going on road with the victim. In Para-12 witness Maya Devi says that the victim was not of perfectly sound mind and that she had learnt that Bimal and Champa had taken away the victim with them. Learned A.P.P. also pointed out that nearly seven months after the occurrence, three witnesses in Paras-59, 60 and 61 of the case diary have stated that they have also seen Anupam Yadav with petitioner Bimal Yadav and co-accused Champa Devi and Yamuna Yadav going with the victim. Learned A.P.P. also submits that victim is still traceless. Thus hearing and considering that petitioner Bimal Yadav was seen shortly after the occurrence going, 3 Jay/ taking the victim away with him with co-accused Champa Devi and that thereafter the victim is traceless, prayer for bail on his behalf is rejected. So far petitioner Hare Ram Yadav is concerned, he is not said to have been seen shortly after going away of the victim but nearly seven months after the occurrence, witnesses have named him. Under the circumstances, petitioner Hare Ram Yadav is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Manihari P.S.Case No.150 of 2007 (C.M.Prasad,J)