IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21913 of 2010 PAPPU YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 12.07.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is a peculiar case in which initially the case was lodged with a specific allegation levelled under Sections 498A, 304B, 201/34 of the I.P.C. but subsequently the victim appeared and her 164 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded in which she stated that she was got seated in a Train by her husband and subsequently the husband got down which resulted into her disappearance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim is slightly of indisposed mind. Though, at present only case under Section 498A of I.P.C. subsists. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the investigation is still not complete. Learned counsel for the informant, however, does not controvert the factual situation as recorded above, however, submits that it was due to conduct of this petitioner the victim disappeared. 2 Considering the fact that on mere apprehension under Section 304B case was lodged and in 164 Cr.P.C. statement the victim has not stated the date and time of the occurrence or the date of her disappearance hence in peculiar facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, Pappu Yadav, be released on bail on his surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today in connection with Nalanda P.S. Case No. 74 of 2009 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Nalanda, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is still ready to keep the victim as a wife. The grant of bail will not preclude the parties to get the matter reconciliated before the learned court below. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)