IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47340 of 2008 1. MANOJ KUMAR ….. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SATYAVANEME DEVI ….. OPP. PARTIES ----------- 05 10.09.2009 Heard both sides. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in a case instituted under Sections 363, 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Referring to Annexure-2 and Annesure-3, it is contended that he had married the daughter of the informant out of free will. The victim had also consented to marriage. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of informant, bringing on record statement of the girl made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It appears therefrom the victim alleged kidnapping and forcible marriage at the hands of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner is already married with another lady. Counsel for the informant has also brought to the notice of the Court, an order passed in the Writ Petition of the petitioner being Cr. W.J.C. No. 484 of 2008. This Court finds that the alleged marriage of the petitioner with the victim was not countenanced by this Court. 2 Considering the materials available on the record, including the statement of the girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., this Court does not feel persuaded to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail is accordingly, rejected. Let the petitioner surrender and apply for regular bail in the court below, which shall be considered on its own merit uninfluenced by the present order. P.K. (K.K. Mandal, J.)