IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.2224 OF 2010 1. ALAKH MAHTO, SON OF GOPAL MAHTO 2. JOGI MAHTO, SON OF LATE JAGAN MAHTO 3. GOPAL MAHTO, SON OF LATE JAGAN MAHTO 4. DUKHANI DEVI, WIFE OF GOPAL MAHTO ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GONAULI, POLICE STATION LAURIYA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN ………………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BABUNATI DEVI, WIFE OF ALAKH MAHTO, DAUGHTER OF SUKAN MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GONOULI, POLICE STATION LAURIYA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN AT PRESENT KHARA TOLA SRINAGAR, POLICE STATION NAUTAN, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN …………………………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES *********** 2 21/01/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The four petitioners, who are the husband, cousin-in-law, father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the victim lady, are apprehending their arrest in a case under Sections 498A and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also alleged that the petitioners are said to have kidnapped her son. Counsel for the petitioners denies that they have kidnapped the son, in any event they are prepared to return the child back to the lady in question. As far as petitioners 2, 3 and 4, namely, Jogi Mahto, Gopal Mahto and Dukhani Devi are concerned, they are directed to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest/surrender before the Court 2 below within a period of six weeks from today in Complaint Case No. 1106 C of 2008 (Trial No. 3281 of 2009) on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Shri G. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bettiah (West Champaran) subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no. 1 is rejected on the ground that not only he has made allegations against his wife but he has contradicted himself inasmuch as he has stated that he is ready to live with his wife and on the other hand, has stated that she appears to be of a bad character and he does not want to live with her. The application on behalf of petitioner no. 1, namely, Alakh Mahto is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)