IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40479 of 2009 SANJAY RAI, son of Chhote Lal Rai, R/o village Sira, P.S. Dumra, District Sitamarhi …….. Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ….. Opposite Party ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Dinesh Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Uma Shankar Pd. Singh, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Ashok Jha, Advocate ------ 5 23.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant/informant. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 363, 364, 365, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the brother of the complainant / informant was missing since 21.8.2006. However, the complaint was filed after two and half years on the basis of information given by two persons, namely, Ramadhar Sah and Upendra Sah that they had seen the concerned boy in company of the petitioner at Mumbai. However, the complaint was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and during the 2 course of investigation the statement of the aforesaid two persons, who had allegedly informed the complainant/informant, had not been recorded by the police. It is further submitted that during that period of two and half years the grandmother of the complainant/informant had also lodged a case against this petitioner bearing Dumra P.S. Case No. 279 of 2007. Thus, it is submitted that there had been enmity also and due to that petitioner had been falsely implicated. Petitioner is stated to be in custody since 16.7.2009. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that though the statement of aforesaid persons who had informed the informant regarding the boy having been seen in the company of the petitioner in Mumbai, had not been recorded during the course of investigation, however, the Superintendent of Police had directed for initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the Investigating Officer for their omission. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner, SANJAY RAI, is directed to be 3 released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in connection with Dumra P.S. Case No. 130 of 2009, with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner must be a close relative or family member of the petitioner, who shall file affidavit before the concerned court giving complete genealogy to show his or her relationship with the petitioner. Further the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during the course of trial. If the petitioner fails to remain present on two consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation then the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioner. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)