IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15845 of 2010 Partima Devi, Wife of Naresh Malakar, resident of Village- Bandeya, P.S. Makhdumpur, District-Jehanabad -- Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 25-05-2010 Heard Sri Gopal Prasad Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner, apprehending her arrest in connection with Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S. Case No.129 of 2008, registered under Sections 366A/120B of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. Short fact of the case is that the complainant, who is father of the victim girl, filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.379 of 2008 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad alleging therein that his daughter, while going to market to meet her sister, was kidnapped by Sonu Malakar and thereafter accused persons got the marriage of Sonu Malakar forcibly solemnized with the victim girl. The occurrence, as per the complaint petition, had taken place on 21.5.2008 and the victim girl was brought back on 23.5.2008 and complaint petition was filed on 2.6.2008. After filing of the complaint petition as per the order of the court, the complaint was referred to the police for its registration and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, accordingly, Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S. Case No. 129 of 2008. 2 Sri Gopal Prasad Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the entire complaint petition, which is the basis of the F.I.R., there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was involved directly or indirectly in the occurrence, save and except that her name has been incorporated in the column of accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is cousin Bhabhi of the victim. It was argued that she has been implicated in this case only on the ground that her own brother had got married with the victim girl. It was submitted that both Sonu Malakar and victim had got married with their own will, but subsequently it was objected by the family members and thereafter complaint petition was filed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge, Jehanabad by its order dated 2.2.2010 , while rejecting the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of this petitioner, had granted the privilege of anticipatory bail to the husband of the petitioner, namely, Naresh Malakar and one another accused. Be that as it may, in view of the facts and circumstances as indicated above , particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner was own cousin Bhabhi of the victim girl, let the petitioner above named be enlarged on bail in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ( ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the 3 satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in Makhdumpur(Tehta) P.S. Case No.129 of 2008, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J )