IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.42092 OF 2009 1. PAPPU RAJ, SON OF JANESHWAR PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RANAPUR, P.S. RAMPUR CHAURAM, DISTRICT ARWAL 2. SIDHESHWAR SINGH, SON OF BIR BAHADUR SINGH 3. KANCHAN KUMAR SINHA @ CHANCHAN SINHA, SON OF LATE SIDHESHWAR NATH, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE ABGILA, P.S. RAMPUR, CHAURAM, DISTRICT ARWAL………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR……………………………………….…OPPOSITE PARTY WITH CR.MISC. NO.43362 OF 2009 CHANDESHWAR KUMAR, SON OF RAJENDRA RAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOST NAGAR, P.S. MANER, DISTRICT PATNA (BIHAR)………………………………………………………………..……………PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR…………………………….…………OPPOSITE PARTY WITH CR.MISC. NO.43357 OF 2009 KAMLESH PASWAN, SON OF JADU PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARASIYA, P.O. KARA, P.S. JAMHORE, DISTRICT AURANGABAD (BIHAR)………………..…….PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR……………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 2. 11.12.2009 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The case is under sections 364, 342, 376, 506, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to one first information report lodged by the Block Development Officer, Dehri on 24.04.2009 from which it appears that informant Soni Kumari was working with accused Ravikant Srivastava in NGO, namely, ‘PRAYAS’ set - 2 - up by Ravikant Srivastava in Dehri-on-Sone. An enquiry was made on the orders of the S.D.O. in which it was found that the institution was not a NGO but a fake institution to dupe the unemployed youths alluring them to get employment on payment of substantial amounts. The present first information report was instituted by said Soni Kumari on 31.07.1979. In this F.I.R. she narrates story that she was taken by Ravikant Srivastava at different places, kept in confinement and was raped. Thereafter she was recovered by her father. Even after that recovery, said Ravikant Srivastava was threatening her by phone and blackmailing her by disclosing that he had prepared papers to show that they were married. Getting fed up with such pestering, a trap was laid by her with the help of police and she called Ravikant Srivastava to take her along with him as she is agreed to live with him as husband and wife. At the date, time and place indicated by the informant, Ravikant Srivastava came on Bolero with full load of his friends and supporters and when he tried to lift the informant into Bolero, police surrounded them and they were arrested. Petitioners are persons, - 3 - who were sitting in the said Bolero and were also apprehended. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners did not know about the intention of Ravikant Srivastava and Ravikant Srivastava had duped them to accompany them on the ground that he had purchased a new Bolero and was going to Deo to worship. Petitioners, in bona fide belief, had accompanied him in Bolero. He also submits that the story narrated by the informant herself before the police as well as statement made by her under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. will show that she was knowing Ravikant from before in connection with the business and had travelled with him at different places. Although she claims that she was forcibly taken by said Ravikant Srivastava and kept in confinement for quite sometime at different places and was raped, but first information report of the Block Development Officer shows that in fact, she was an accomplice of Ravikant Srivastava. He submits that due to the said F.I.R., Ravikant Srivastava and the informant fell apart and differences between them led to filing of the present case and petitioners - 4 - have been dragged into case on being duped by said Ravikant Srivastava and they had no role to play in the activities of the said NGO or relationship between the informant and said Ravikant Srivastava. Petitioners are in judicial custody since 01.08.2009 and it is said that all petitioners are young and some of them are students of A.N. College, Patna. Considering the above facts and circumstances and particularly, considering the statement of the informant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and F.I.R. instituted by the Block Development Officer, these applications are allowed. Let petitioners of all these applications, namely, Pappu Raj, Sidheshwar Singh and Kanchan Kumar Sinha @ Chanchan Sinha, Chandeshwar Kumar and Kamlesh Paswan, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in connection with Aurangabad (T) P.S. Case No.301/09 with conditions as laid down in sub-section (3) of section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as - 5 - may be applicable and also that one of the bailors shall be a close relation of the petitioners. In case of breach of any of the conditions at any stage to the satisfaction of the concerned court below, it shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioners and take steps for their arrest. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)