IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27413 of 2009 LATTAR SARDAR S/O LATE CHICHAI SARDAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIRMALI, P.S. PIPRA, DISTRICT SUPAUL …… PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUKHIA DEVI W/O MOTI SARDAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIRMALI, P.S. PIPRA, DISTRICT SUPAUL …. O.PS. ----------- 2. 26.8.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Section 395, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The submission before this Court is that the occurrence is of the year 1997 and the complaint was instituted for the offences under Sections 395, 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. in which cognizance was taken but thereafter in revision bearing Criminal Revision no.292 of 1999 the cognizance was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Magistrate for a fresh order on cognizance. In the mean while the petitioner was remanded to custody but was released on bail after the order of cognizance was set aside. Thereafter on remission, cognizance was once again taken in the matter but a compromise petition has been filed on 1.5.2008, which fact was not disputed by the State as noted in Annexure-7, which is the bail order of co-accused Singheshwar Sardar and Nunu Sardar. Unfortunately in the impugned order there is no mention of the compromise 2 petition having been filed by the complainant. Under the circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M., Supaul in Complaint Case No.279C of 1997, subject to the condition that the complainant will be noticed and if she supports the fact of compromise then the petitioner be released on bail. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )