IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3741 of 2011 Mithilesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Rai Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 05. 08.09.2011 The petitioner being the husband is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was initiated on the basis of complaint file on 07.06.2010 stipulating that the marriage took place on 09.12.2009, but thereafter, torture was inflicted and on 01.06.2010, the complainant being the father of the victim girl received information that his daughter has been badly assaulted and thereafter he could not get any information. The matter has been initially heard when notices were issued to opposite party no.2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that he has no information about the victim as the victim was abducted by the accused persons. In the complaint, the accusation is of demand 2 of dowry and torture. The petitioner’s side has relied on Annexure-2 which is a petition submitted by the petitioner on 04.06.2010 before Sub-divisional Police officer prior to the lodging of the present case to the effect that on 01.06.2010, victim girl eloped with one Binod Rai with whom she had some illicit relation. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 24.09.2010 a petition was filed on behalf of the complainant being the father of the victim before the learned A.C.J.M. Danapur that the said Binod was found moving in suspicious condition on 18.09.2010 near the house of the complainant when on a pistol point victim was abducted by Binod Rai son of Manager Rai. From the case diary, it appears that in para 46, the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim was recorded by the police where it has been specifically recorded that the victim suo motu appeared before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Danapur and alleged only torture against the petitioner. It appears from the paras 52 and 53 of the case diary that 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of the victim was 3 also recorded when before the Magistrate she expressed her willingness to go to her father’s house. In view of the statements of the victim and the stand of the complainant that victim is traceless at the instance of the petitioner, the bona fide of the accusation gets clouded. It appears from the case diary that the investigation is still pending. Considering the suspicious conduct of the victim girl as well her father being the complainant, let the above named petitioner, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 174/2010, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Amrendra/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)