IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41569 of 2009 Mukesh Sahni, son of Bhangi Lal Sahni, resident of Village- Kalwari Fatepur, P.S. Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur. ………Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar ……………………….Opposite Party. With Cr.Misc. No.39200 of 2009 Amarjeet Sahni @ Nanu Kumar, son of Seetal Sahni, Resident of Village- Kalwari Fatahpur, P.S. Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur. ………………………Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar ……………………….Opposite Party. With Cr.Misc. No.15101 of 2010 Guddu Kumar, son of Late Ram Ekbal Sahni of Village- Kalwari Fatehpur, P.S.- Kanti, Disrtrict- Muzaffarpur. …….Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar ……………………..Opposite Party. ----------- For the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 41569 of 2009 :- Mr. Nirmal Kr. Sinha No.3, Advocate. For the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 39200 of 2009 :- Mr. Diwakar Prasad Karn, Advocate. For the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 15101 of 2010 :- Mr. Nirmal Kr. Sinha No. 3, Advocate. 3. 29. 04. 2010. Heard the parties. The petitioners in all Cr. Misc. petitions are accused in one and same P.S. Case , therefore, the same have taken up together for convenience and the present order shall govern all the three cases. In a criminal prosecution for offences under Sections 366 A, 363 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, one Sangita Kumari, minor daughter of the informant, was kidnapped by the accused persons including the petitioners. In the F.I.R. petitioner- Mukesh 2 sahni and Amarjeet Sahni @ Nanu Kumar are specifically named as accused, though petitioner Guddu Kumar is not named in the F.I.R. as an accused. During the course of investigation, alleged victim Sangita Kumari was recovered and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 17th October, 2007, vide Annexure-2 wherein victim has specifically named all the petitioners as persons responsible for committing the crime of kidnapping. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that alleged victim has not attributed any allegation against the petitioners regarding commission of sexual assault against them. Allegation of sexual assault is only against co-accused Sube Kumar @ Sube Sahni. By referring to Annexure-4, it was pointed out that the matter has been compromised between the parties. Be that as it may in view of nature of allegation and in view of the fact that alleged victim has attributed specific role against these petitioners also regarding their participation in the crime of kidnapping, and they all are absconding for more than three years, therefore, prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners is rejected. The petitioners must surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and if so advised, seek regular bail which shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)