IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1070 of 2011 1. SANT LAL BHAGAT @ RAM BILASH BHAGAT son of late Biltu Bhagat @ Khurkhur Bhagat, 2. Amar Nath Bhagat @ Gopi son of Sant Lal Bhagat @ Ram Bilash Bhagat, 3. Pashupati Bhagat @ Amit @ Amit Bhagat son Sant Lal Bhagat @ Ram Bilash Bhagat, All residents of village Kutubpur, Dighra, Police Station Bidupur, District Vaishali … Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR… .. OPPOSITE PARTY For the Petitioner: Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. R.P.S. Singh, APP ----------- 2 14.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a complaint case wherein cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under sections 323, 427, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the allegation in the complaint case, the petitioners after entering the house of the complainant took away ornaments, cash and other articles worth rupees two lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint case was filed for the alleged offences under sections 147, 148, 452, 380, 427 and 307 of the Indian Penal 2 Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, however, cognizance has been taken for offence punishable under sections 323, 427, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, out of which the offence under section 452 of the Indian Penal is only non- bailable and other offences are bailable. It is further submitted that both the parties are agnates and the daughter of petitioner no. 1 was kidnapped and forcibly married by the son of the complainant. However, the son of the complainant filed Cr.W.J.C. No. 494 of 2009 before this Court, which was a writ for habeas corpus to produce the girl, as she was allegedly illegally confined by her parents after marriage. The Division Bench of this Court held that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent no. 5 of the aforesaid writ petition is impermissible in view of the provisions under sub-sections (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and is, thus, void. It has also been held that the girl is in lawful custody of her parents. It is further submitted that in above view of the matter, since no cognizance for the offences under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code or Arms Act has been taken and in fact, the daughter of petitioner no. 1 has been kidnapped by the son of the complainant, the false implication is writ large. 3 Further contention of the petitioners is that both the parties live in different part of the same house being close agnates and a case of kidnapping for the daughter of the petitioner no. 1 has also been filed. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is allegation of trespass etc. against the petitioners. However, it is a fact that a Division Bench of this Court had held the marriage between the son of the complainant and the daughter of the petitioner no. 1 to be void. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender of the petitioners, Sant Lal Bhagat @ Ram Bilash Bhagat, Amar Nath Bhagat @ Gopi, and Pashupati Bhagat @ Amit @ Amit Bhagat, within a period of four weeks from today in Complaint Case No. 1672/2009, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)