IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.3847 OF 2011 DWARIKA SINGH & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04. 05.07.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The prosecution case as per written report lodged by Anita Devi wife of victim Din Dayal Singh happens to be that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, one Rinku Singh who happens to be brother of her daughter-in-law, with whom her son had married against will of her family, took away her husband, Din Dayal Singh and since thereafter he is missing. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that whatever allegation happens to be, that remains against sole accused, Rinku Singh. Subsequently, simply on the ground that petitioners happen to be parents of Rinku Singh as well as brothers, they have been roped in without having any sort of direct as well as circumstantial evidence and so submitted that they be enlarged on an anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned Addition P.P. along 2 with learned counsel for the informant submitted that though there happens to be absence of direct or circumstantial evidence but the fact remains that whole family were annoyed on account of marriage of daughter of petitioners no.1 and 2, sister of petitioners no. 3 and 4. I have also gone through the case diary which lacks sufficient material to connect the petitioners with the allegation. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners, namely, DWARIKA SINGH, URMILA DEVI, AMIT SINGH and SUMIT KUMAR SINGH are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara in Udwant Nagar PS Case No. 124 of 2010 in the event of arrest or surrender within a fortnight in terms of condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. perwez ( Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J. )