IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40453 of 2009 1. SITARAM MAHTO, son of Faguni Mahto @ Kari Mahto 2. FAGUNI MAHTO ALIAS KARI MAHTO, son of Late Mishri Mahto 3. RAMPARI DEVI wife of Faguni Mahto alias Kari Mahto 4. SANGEETA DEVI wife of Birju Mahto 5. BEDAMIYA DEVI wife of Mahendra Mahto 6. ARUN KUMAR MAHTO son of Mahendra Mahto 7. MEENA DEVI wife of Ashok Mahto alias Lukhra 8. ASHOK MAHTO ALIAS LUKHRA son of Late Jay Kishun Mahto All the aforesaid persons are residents of Village Maw, Dhaneshwarpur North, Shanichra Asthan, District Samastipur. ----Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 18.12.2009 Mr Ram Shankar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of this application, petitioner no.1 Sitaram Mahto, petitioner no.6 Arun Kumar Mahto and petitioner no.8 Ashok Mahto alias Lukhra have been arrested and as such this application as against them have become infructuous. This application against the aforesaid petitioners is, thus, dismissed as infructuous. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The offence alleged against the petitioners, who are apprehending their arrest in a police case, is under sections 304B/34, 201, 325, 379 and 120B of the India Penal Code. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are omnibus. As a matter of fact, the deceased had gone along with her husband and, as such, the petitioners had no hands in the alleged disappearance of the daughter of the informant. 2 Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the daughter of the informant was done to death. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let petitioner no.3 Rampari Devi, petitioner no.4 Sangeeta Devi, petitioner no. 5 Bedamiya Devi and petitioner no.7 Meena Devi, in the event of their arrest or surrender in connection with Vidyapatinagar P.S. Case No.138 of 2008 within a period of four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur, in connection with the aforesaid case, on the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of petitioner no.2 Faguni Mahto alias Kari Mahto is concerned, considering the nature of allegations, I am not inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail and as such this application on behalf of petitioner no.2 is, accordingly, rejected. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)