IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14347 of 2009 RANDHIR KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.17048 of 2009 1. LAXMI DAS 2. PRAMILA DEVI 3. GITA DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 18.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the State. As both the aforesaid cases arise out of same police station case number being Bathnaha P.S. Case No.108 of 2008 as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. In Cr.Misc.No.17048 of 2009 the three petitioners seek for anticipatory bail whereas the sole petitioner in Cr.Misc.No.14347 of 2009 seeks for regular bail. It is alleged by the informant Kishori Mahto that on 10.8.2008 at 6 P.M., one Sanju Devi and her Bhabhi Geeta Devi approached his wife and sought permission to take his daughter namely Guriya Kumari next morning to attend the worship place namely Deokuli Dham. The informant did not agree to the same. However, in the next morning the informant found his daughter Guriya Kumari, aged about 14 years to be missing. Counsel for the petitioners appearing in Cr.Misc.No.17048 of 2009 submits that the own maternal uncle of the victim namely Subodh Kumar filed an application before the Station House Officer of the Nagar P.S. of Samastipur on 2 11.8.2008 stating therein that one Randhir Kumar has kept the victim. He further alleged that on being enquired, Randhir Kumar stated that he has brought her for the purpose of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner Randhir Kumar in Cr.Misc.No.14347 of 2009 has referred to paragraph 27 of the case diary which contains the statement of one Vijay Kumar Mahto in whose house Sanju Devi and her husband used to reside. He stated that the victim girl was kept in his house in disguise. He further stated that he saw the accused persons including petitioner nos.1 and 2 in his house. He stated that subsequently on coming to learn that police has come, they fled away. He further stated that Raj Narayan Mahto who happens to be Phupha of the victim has stated that the petitioner is innocent. After hearing counsel for the parties, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners Laxmi Das and Gita Devi in Cr.Misc.No.17048 of 2009 is rejected. So far as prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.3 Pramila Devi is concerned, she is directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of her arrest/surrender, in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No.108 of 2008 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 3 KHAN So far as petitioner Randhir Kumar in Cr.Misc.No.14347 of 2009 is concerned, it appears that he is in custody since 22.9.2008 and as such he is directed to be released on bail in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No.108 of 2008 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi. (S.P.Singh,J)