IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2745 of 2010 1.FEKNI DEVI wife of late Md. Usman 2..Md. Rustam son of late Md. Usman 3.Md. Subhan son of Abdul Mian 4..Md. Mangala @ Manguludin son of Md. Suro 5. Md. Salam son of Md. Akhtar , all are residents of village Karauti Bazaar, P.S. Udakishnganj, Dist. Madhepura…..Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2.Jamila Khatoon D/o Md. Hadish, R/O Karauti Bazar, P.S. Udakishunganj, Dist. Madhepura …..O.Ps. ----------- 2 26.3.2010 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar , learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shashtri, learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in complaint case no. C-73 of 2008 in which cognizance has been taken under section 363, 365, 323/34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance has also been taken under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code against co-accused Md. Enamul. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the complaint petition the accused persons are said to have kidnapped the complainant and subsequently she was recovered from a wheat field and thereafter she went to lodge a case before the police but it was not registered and subsequently she filed present petition of complaint in the court. By referring to annexure-4, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to filing of the present complaint petition a F.I.R. was lodged by petitioner no.2 against one Bharat Rai where it t has been alleged that the complainant was found in the company of aforesaid Bharat Rai. They were taken out from a room and in that case charge sheet has been submitted against the aforesaid Bharat Rai vide annexure-5. He has also referred to several documents which are available on record to show that the entire prosecution case is false and concocted one for certain political reasons. It is - 2 - submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that complainant is playing in the hands of some other person who was inimical to the petitioners and according to him the allegation of kidnapping is not believable. Learned counsel for the State, though opposed the prayer for bail, had not disputed the aforesaid position. In the aforesaid background, let the above named petitioners in the event of their arrest or surrender in the court below within four weeks from today be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri R.S. Yadav, J.M. Ist, class, Madhepura, in the above noted case, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) M.Rahman