IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10881 of 2010 GAURI SHANKAR CHOUBEY, S/o LATE KAPIL CHOUBEY, R/O VILLAGE TAMAR, P.S. – BHABUA (SONHAN), DISTRICT – KAIMUR (BHABUA) ……. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ……. OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 2 26.04.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bhabua (Sonhan) P.S. Case No. 466 of 2008 dated 22.12.2008 registered under Section 364A/34 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not named in the F.I.R. as accused and F.I.R. has been lodged against five other unknown miscreants. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation abducted person Ram Bhajan Shah, father of informant voluntarily returned to his house, and thereafter, his statements were recorded by the Police in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. as also under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is highlighted that, in the statement of the alleged abducted person, specific role has not been assigned against this petitioner. Allegation of kidnapping is against unknown persons, allegation of keeping the abducted person in confinement is against unknown 2 persons, allegation of demand of ransom is also against other unknown persons and only allegation against the petitioner is that he was present there for showing path when the alleged victim was allegedly abducted by unknown miscreants. It is further submitted that there has been some land disputes between the petitioner at one side and the informant and other at the other side, and therefore, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the State as also the informant have strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and have pointed out that the co-accused Shankar Yadav has confessed his guilt and involvement of the petitioner during the course of investigation, and the alleged abducted person in his statement has also involved the petitioner, but, they clearly conceded that the main allegation of abduction is against unknown miscreants. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of certain land disputes going on between the 3 parties including the petitioner, in the event of arrest / surrender within a period of four weeks from today in the above noted case, the above named petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Bhabhua, subject to the conditions as laid down under sub section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and subject to further condition that: (a) One of the bailors must be government servant or close family members of the petitioners who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his / her relationship with the petitions. (b) If the petitioners are found involved in same and similar nature of cases in future, then in that case the informant/prosecution shall be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of the bail of 4 the petitioners, and if such a petition is filed, the court below would be obliged to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Praful (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)