IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22629 of 2009 TUNO YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 06/ 26.11.2009 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the informant and the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case arising from Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 95 of 2008 for offences punishable under Sections 365, 120B, 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the of the Indian Penal Code. The case arises out of a Complaint petition bearing Complaint Case No. 581 of 2007 which has been subsequently registered under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure giving rise to the present case. The substance of allegation as set out in the Complaint petition is that the accused persons named in the Complaint petition have been alleged to have kidnapped the son of the complainant Kari Yadav and were demanding ransom of Rs. one lac and for lifting of the partition suit going on between the parties. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that admittedly the contesting parties are agnates and the partition suit is going on between the parties. Learned counsel placing reliance on a copy of the Panchnama placed at Annexure-2 submits that the father of the complainant had undertaken to produce the child. He submits that the kidnapping 2 of the son of the complainant is their handy work with a view to pressurize the petitioner and other accused persons to enter into a compromise. It is submitted that the complainant and others have been talking to the victim son through different mobile numbers which are mentioned in paragraph-15 of the bail application. He submits that the allegation as set out in the Complaint petition itself makes the whole occurrence improbable as no details have been given therein. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has filed a counter affidavit and has submitted that the Panchnama which is being relied upon by the petitioner and placed at Annexure-2 is itself a forged document containing interpolations inasmuch as the father of the complainant never made any such statement of producing the complainant’s son. He has further brought on record that the statement of the petitioner about criminal antecedent was not correct and that he is also found in some other cases. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the boy is still untraceable. In response to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the informant, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply and in which he has started that out of two cases mentioned in the counter affidavit one has also ended into compromise as back as on 7.7.2008 and so far as the second case is concerned, the members of both parties are accused. 3 Placing reliance on the reply filed today, he further submits that the statement made earlier may be treated to be modified as there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to have made any incorrect submission. Having given anxious consideration to the matter and the manner of the allegation set out in the Complaint petition and the counter affidavit filed during the course of proceedings, let petitioner Tuno Yadav be released 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, Samastipur in connection with Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 95 of 2008 subject to the condition that he would be attending the court below on each and every date fixed and that the failure on the part of the petitioner to attend the court below on two consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the court below would confer liberty on the court below to initiate proceedings for cancellation of his bail bonds and for taking him into custody. The petitioner would also be co-operating with the trial and accepting the police papers without making any effort to delay the trial. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)