IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10919 of 2010 MD.MUSTKIM ALAM @ PAPPU Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 22.4.2010 Heard the parties. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. case No. 577 of 2009 dated 7.11.2009 registered under sections 366, 384, 385, 386, 379 of the Indian penal Code. According to the prosecution case though the complainant and the petitioner are related to each other, but there is specific allegation of kidnapping against the petitioner. The informant/complainant was taken to Ajmer under fear and threat and her signature was obtained on some plain papers. There is allegation of demand of ransom also. Learned counsel for the petitoner submits that he had married with the complainant and in support of that he has annexed Nikahnama vide Annexure-2 and the alleged affidavit sworn by the complainant vide annexsure-3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that the complainant is now not living with him as his wife. Learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that in view of the allegation in the complaint petition/FIR genuineness of annexure 2 and 3 are yet to be tested and, therefore, the claim of the marriage of the petitoner cannot be accepted at this stage. In the aforesaid background, prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitoner is rejected. Petitoner must surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and, if so advised, seek - 2 - regular bail. If such a petition is filed, then the same may be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) M.Rahman