IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.815 of 2011 RAM KUMAR, SON OF SRI PRAMOD SAH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 11.02.2011 It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in prayer portion in place of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria it has wrongly been typed as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections within course of the day. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant. Petitioner seeks his bail in connection with Chautham P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 registered under Sections 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, the statement of victim girl has been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that she was not kidnapped by any person rather she had gone to Delhi along with petitioner by her own sweet will and subsequently, she solemnized her marriage with the petitioner. The victim was found major by the learned Magistrate, who recorded the statement of victim girl. I am surprised to see the order of learned Sessions Judge, Khagaria and furthermore, I am unable to understand as to why the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner, particularly, in the light when the victim has not supported the prosecution case. In view of the aforesaid circumstances above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in connection with above stated Chautham P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010. Shahzad (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J )