IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2083 of 2010 1. SK.AZAD, son of Sk. Hussain 2. Sk. Hussain, son of Sk. Rogi Both resident of Nautanwa, P.S. Shikarpur 3. Sk. Kamil, son of Sk. Mazid, resident of village Belwa, P.S. Sathi 4. Sk. Merajul, son of Sk. Chokat, resident of village Dehi Mathia, P.S. Majhaulia All resident of District West Champaran Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 23.2.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. The prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the four petitioners facing prosecution for offences under Sections 363, 366(A), 504 and 506 I.P.C. has been pressed on the ground that the victim girl on the date of kidnapping was adult and in fact she had voluntarily married the son of petitioner no.1. Counsel has also submitted that the only allegation against the petitioners is that when the informant, the father of the victim girl, had gone to their house while searching his daughter they had given assurance that he should not worry and his daughter would be found. On the basis of these submissions counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners would deserve to be granted 2 anticipatory bail. In the opinion of this Court, if whatever has been stated in Annexure 3, the application allegedly filed by the victim girl before the court is correct, there would be no question of any offence against the petitioners but then the crucial question is that till date the victim girl has not been traced out or has appeared before the police much less in the court. In that view of the matter, whatever has been said in compromise petition dated 2.11.2009, allegedly filed by the victim girl as with regard to either she being an adult or the marriage with the son of petitioner no. 1 taking place on her own volition would have no meaning unless she herself appears in court and supports the facts mentioned in petition by getting her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It must be kept in mind that in the F.I.R. it has been alleged that the victim girl was a minor and thus there would be no question of her consent to elopement followed by her marriage. Thus the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that as a matter 3 of fact nothing would be established against the petitioners and no offence can be said to be made out against them also seems to be prejudging the things, inasmuch as F.I.R. by itself is not supposed to be complete text of the whole offence. Here the complicity of the petitioners has emerged on account of the father of the victim girl having come to know of abduction by the son of petitioner no.1 had gone to their house and the petitioners did not claim to be unaware of the things rather they had gone to convey that the informant should not worry, inasmuch as the daughter will be traced out. In that view of the matter, it can be easily inferred that the petitioners also were aware of the incident which had taken place earlier. In any event the question as to whether there would be any material against the petitioners would be good enough to be seen normally at the time of trial of the case. This Court therefore is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. None-the-less as this Court has found from the materials on record that the 4 petitioners are well aware of the victim girl and in fact they have produced and relied on the compromise petition of the victim girl, Annexure 3, to show that there is no iota of truth in the criminal case filed by the informant. Thus if the petitioners surrender and also make the victim girl to appear before the court for getting her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and if the court below from such statement of victim girl u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is satisfied that the victim girl on the date of occurrence was major and was married to the son of the petitioner no. 1 on her own volition, the court below shall enlarge the petitioners on regular bail. With the aforementioned observations, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/