IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27243 of 2009 1. RAM AUTAR RAY 2. Deeplal Ray 3. Shatrughan Ray 4. Ashok Ray 5. Manoj Ray 6. Saheb Ray 7. Ram Babu Ray 8. Ranjana Devi 9. Savita Devi 10. Urmila Devi Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ------ 2/ 02.09.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the application against petitioner nos. 2, 4, 6 and 7, inasmuch as they have been arrested during the pendency of the application. Such permission is granted. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as withdrawn against petitioner nos.2, 4, 6 and 7. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though all the family members have been alleged for making demand and causing of cruelty but it was Santosh with whom there was some affair with informant. Some ceremonies might have been taken place but he was alleged for kidnapping her as minor girl of her family that was anyhow subsided but no any ceremony was observed if can be said the marriage accepted by Hindu Marriage Act as none of the families custom observed in the ceremony, while boy and girl left their house went to temple and undergone some ceremony. However, the circumstances as discussed above in my 2 view do not justify the petitioners’ arrest at the moment. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner nos. 1, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10 is allowed. In the event of arrest or surrender within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in connection with G.R. No. 179 of 2009 arising out of Tariani P.S. Case No. 51 of 2009, above named petitioners no. 1, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10 shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M., Sheohar subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr. P.C. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)