IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40747 of 2010 1. MITHILA SHARMA @ MITHILA SINGH 2. SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA 3. MALTI DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----- 02. 25.03.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the application of petitioner no.2. Permission is accorded. Accordingly, this application of petitioner no.2 is dismissed as withdrawn. Heard learned counsel for the rest petitioners and the state. Learned lawyer for the informant is also present. It appears torture by the complainant on her in-laws otherwise marriage is of the year 1998. Torture for demand is made for the first time in year 2009 by filing an F.I.R. that also after obtaining a job of school teacher and residing at different place. Police investigated the case submitted final form exonerating petitioners from all the liabilities. It appears that while cognizance is taken, Judicial Magistrate applies no mind at all. They are expected to conduct enquiry though, are to consider constitution of prima facie offence, but enquiry should not be base on statement of the complainant and her witnesses alone at least some query (question) should be there to believe their statement prima facie. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the above 2 named petitioner nos.1 and 3 shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in connection with Complaint Case No.62 of 2010, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. Vikash (Mandhata Singh, J.)