IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21418 of 2009 1. SUSHIL SINGH 2. FIRANGI SINGH @ JAYPAL SING Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 28.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking bail in a case instituted under section 366A IPC. According to the FIR, the adult daughter of the informant while cleaning utensils in the courtyard (Aangan) was found missing. It was suspected that she might have been kidnapped by the two uncles(petitioners). Records indicate that this occurrence took place on 17.03.2009 at about 7.30 P.M. and the matter was reported forthwith at 9.00 P.M. on the same day. Records also indicate that these two petitioners were arrested on the same day at about 11 O’clock from their house. The petitioners are the co-occupants of the ancestral house being close agnate of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the victim girl returned on her own after 19 days of the occurrence and gave a phone call to the uncle (brother of the informant) who accordingly informed the police. The girl was subsequently produced before the Magistrate for recording her statement in which she has stated that the two uncles including other members of the family including cousin sister and aunty kidnapped her. She was taken to a vehicle where three unknown person were sitting from before. It is alleged that she 2 was taken to an unknown place where the three unknown persons misbehaved with her. She, however, managed to rescue herself and reach Patna Junction from Ara whereafter she telephoned her family members regarding her sufferings and nightmarish experience. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation may be considered in the background of the fact that the informant and the petitioners herein are brothers. There is already a dispute going on between the parties over partition of ancestral property including ancestral house in question. This fact purposely was not disclosed in the FIR. It is next contended that there is no material apart from the statement of the informant and the family members that the victim was kidnapped by the uncles and others. It is contended that normally in such matters delay is caused in lodging the FIR. Here is the case in which within one and half an hour of the occurrence the matter was reported to the police without there being any search made to locate 18 years old daughter of the informant. It is next contended that subsequently an effort was made to rope in other family members of the accuseds including the lady members. It is next contended that having regard to the special facts of the case, the Sub-divisional Police Officer who made supervision of the case, found that both the parties are agnates and locked in disputes over partition from before and are in fact occupants of the same house and, therefore, the investigation needs in depth enquiry including verification from other independent sources as well. This Court finds from the police report that absolutely no 3 such effort was made to comply with the aforesaid observation/direction of the Sub-divisional Police Officer and charge-sheet was submitted. Having regard to these aspect of the case, this Court feels persuaded to grant the petitioners the privilege of bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners abovenamed be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia in connection with Parbatta (Naugachia) P.S. Case No. 32/09. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )