IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19557 of 2010 1. ABHITAB BACHAN YADAV @ Amita Bachan Yadav 2. Shiv Murat Yadav Both sons of Nand Kumar Yadav, resident of village- Kowa Khoch, Police Station-Dinara, District-Rohtas Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 23.06.2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners are in custody in connection with Dinara P.S. Case No. 22 of 2010 for offences punishable under Sections 366A, 366, 376, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (X)(XII) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the substance of allegation as set out in the F.I.R. submits that the informant is a married lady and she on her own volition had accompanied the petitioner to Rajasthan and had cohabited with him. Learned counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioner of trying to kill the informant is not correct and that the petitioner is ready to keep the informant with due care and dignity and which undertaking of the petitioner has also been 2 taken note in the impugned order. He further submits that it is the informant herself who has refused to go with the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the police after investigation has also submitted a chargesheet under Section 498/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the S.C/S.T. Act. He thus submits that the allegation of rape has not been found to be correct. Having regard to the submissions aforesaid, let the above named petitioners be released on bail upon each of them furnishing individual bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Dinara P.S. Case No.22 of 2010 subject to the following conditions:- (1) That the father of the petitioners would stand as one of the bailors. (2) The petitioner would accept the police papers without causing any delay and would ensure that they are duly represented on each and every date fixed in the case. The failure on the part of any of the petitioners to ensure his representation in the Court below 3 on two consecutive dates fixed in the case without any reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the Court below, would entitle the Court below to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the bail bonds of the defaulting petitioner and for taking him into custody. Bibhash ( Jyoti Saran, J.)