IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29039 of 2010 PARDESHI MALLAH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 11.08.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner is languishing in jail since 05.10.2009 in a case registered under Section 366A/34 of the I.P.C. It is alleged that this petitioner and one Pramod Bhagat took the victim girl to Punjab and after more than six months of lodging of the case this petitioner produced the victim girl. In 164 Cr.P.C. statement though the victim claims as herself minor but she stated that initially she went in the company of this petitioner, one Dhrub and Pramod. Thereafter in the company of this petitioner victim went to Punjab where this petitioner forcibly married her but after the marriage it is stated that no physical relationship was established by this petitioner. Moreover, the reason assigned by the victim of running away from the place of the petitioner is the assault made by the petitioner and not due to the fact of the kidnapping. From 164 Cr.P.C. statement it 2 appears that the victim is aware about whole situation and the consequences of staying with the petitioner. Considering the total impact of 164 Cr.P.C. statement and period under custody, let the petitioner, Pardeshi Mallah, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., Bagaha, West Champaran, in connection with Semra P.S. Case No. 18 of 2007. The learned court below will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner if he fails to appear on three consecutive dates during trial. U.K. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)