IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17112 of 2010 1. SUNITI KUMARI @ SUNITI WIFE OF LALAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARIYARPUR, P.S. CHHATAUNI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. 2. RICHA @ GUDIYA, WIFE OF DIPU KUMAR @ PAPU KUMAR, PROPRIETOR OF BEAUTI PARLOR, ROOP MAHAL CHAKIYA, P.S. CHAKIA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. DR. HARENDRA PD. SINGH, S/O LATE HARIHAR PD. SINGH, R/O ANAND NURSING HOME, N.H.28, P.S. CHAKIA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. ----------- 2. 26.5.2010. Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is permitted to implead the complainant as opposite party no.2. Shri D.K. Tondon has already filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant. Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Shri D.K. Tondon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 and Shri Atul Chandra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. Two petitioners apprehending their arrest in Complaint Case No.2341 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 364, 364A, 366, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. - 2 - Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint petition disclosing therein that her one staff, namely, Nazra Khatoon was kidnapped by accused persons while complainant was away from Motihari. After return from Motihari, he gathered information that her staff Nazra Khatoon was kidnapped and thereafter, the complainant went to the police station for giving information and Sanha was recorded. However, the police did not register any case and thereafter, the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.486 of 2006 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran. The said complaint was referred to the police for its registration and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after investigating the case, police found the occurrence as true, but no clue could be gathered and, accordingly, two petitioners were not sent up for trial and final form was submitted by the police vide Annexure-3 to the petition, which is at page- 31. Before filing of the final form, the - 3 - complainant apprehending that he may not get justice from the police, had filed a protest petition. After filing of the final form, the protest petition was treated as complaint petition and thereafter, the learned Magistrate, after conducting enquiry, has taken cognizance of offences and directed for issuance of process for appearance of accused persons including both the petitioners. Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while pressing the anticipatory bail petition, submits that the opposite party no.2 had maliciously filed the complaint petition due to the reason that one of the close friend of both the petitioners had earlier filed an F.I.R. vide Chakia P.S. Case No.53 of 2006 on 26.3.2006 for the offence under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party no.2, his wife and others. He submits that after filing of the F.I.R. with a view to take revenge, the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case vide Complaint Case No.486 of 2006 in which Sajda Khatoon besides the - 4 - petitioners and others were also made accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the case i.e. Chakia P.S. Case No.53 of 2006, police after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to Annexure-4 series at page-37, submits that petitioner no.1 Suniti Kumari has been cited as one of the witnesses in Chakia P.S. Case No.53 of 2006. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Shri Tondon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, submits that in this case, victim girl is still traceless. Accordingly, he has prayed that at this stage, prayer for anticipatory bail of both the petitioners may be rejected. Shri Atul Chandra, learned Additional P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, supports the stand taken by the opposite party no.2. He also prays for rejection of the prayer of anticipatory bail. Besides hearing, learned counsel for - 5 - the parties, I have also examined the materials available on records. In this case, firstly complaint petition was referred to the police and the police after investigation did not find any clue against these petitioners and thereafter, final form was submitted. Keeping in view the fact that earlier to filing the complaint petition, an F.I.R. was filed and in which the petitioner no.1 was cited as one of the witnesses in this case, who supported the case of the informant, I am of the view that it is a fit case in which privilege for grant of bail can be extended. Accordingly, petition is allowed. In the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, petitioners above named shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri A.Raj, J.M. Ist Class Sadar, Motihari in Complaint Case No.2341 of 2008, subject to - 6 - N.H./ the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)