IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21189 of 2009 ABHIMANYU PRASAD @ ABHIMANYU KUMAR Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ------ 8/ 15.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the complainant’s daughter but he failed to satisfy the Court that alleged allegation is specific upon the husband when the submission is made on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation at all against the husband in the statement recorded by the victim girl on S.A. in course of enquiry. A vague allegation is levelled against in-laws beginning just after the marriage on 10.09.2006 but ends with specification naming family members excluding this petitioner. The Court’s question is also there that allegation has been made against one Deepa, gotni of the victim lady, also standing on her footing (complainant’s daughter). Further no demand was ever made from her parents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer of the petitioner 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 Complaint Case No. 703 of 2008, above named petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to 2 the satisfaction of C.J.M., Rohtas subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr. P.C. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)