IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7466 of 2010 1.ABINASH KUMAR son of Shri Lalan Kumar Yadav, 2.Pankaj Yadav son of Shri Satyendra Yadav, both residents of Village + P.S. Karjain, Dist. Supaul ….Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 30.3.2010 Heard Mr. Amrit Abhijat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the informant as also Mr. Dashrath Mehta, learned A.P.P. for the State. In compliance of order dated 18.3.2010, the petitioner not , the alleged victim girl Anshu Prabha as also the parents of the alleged victim girl are physically present in court and they have been duly identified by the respective lawyers. Alleged victim girl Anshu Prabha has clearly stated before the court that she is major and aged about 22 years and she has voluntarily married with the petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner and aforesaid Anshu Prabha has also been registered under the provisions of Special Marriage Act vide annexure-5. The informant, who happens to be father of Anshu Prabha, as also the mother of aforesaid Anshu prabha tried to deny the factum of marriage between petitioner no.1 and the alleged victim girl Anshu Prabha and they have also stated that if she has married with the petitioner no.1, then they may not be having any type of relationship with the alleged victim girl in future. In the aforesaid back ground and in view of the categorical statements made by the victim girl about her majority and about her marriage with petitioner no.1, let the above named petitioners in the event of their arrest or surrender in the court below within four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each - 2 - with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Laheri P.S. case no. 203 of 2009, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. It is stated by learned counsel for the informant that L.T.Is. or signatures of the informant and his wife were obtained by the petitioners on a some plain papers while they had gone to Nepal for searching out their daughter i.e. alleged victim girl Anshu Prabha. It is made clear that if any L.T.I. or signature of the informant and his wife is there on the plain papers then that can not be used in any future proceeding and same shall have no evidentiary value. It is expected that the informant and his wife shall restrain themselves from hurling any threat either to their daughter or to the petitioners. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) M.Rahman