IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20788 of 2010 SANJEEV MAHASETH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 14.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner being the brother–in-law (Devar) of the victim lady is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 366A, 364 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the F.I.R. lodged by the brother of the victim that the victim was living with her parents due to torture and demand of dowry by the in-laws family but she went missing from the house since 27.10.09 along with her belongings . It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that actually a divorce case was filed by the husband on 20.6.09 and for not filing reply in the matrimonial case, the present case has been lodged to explain the delay. Though subsequently statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. of the victim was recorded on 30.10.2010 as contained in Annexure-2 in which she claims that this petitioner being the brother-in-law called her and taken her to Delhi. She admits that the petitioner being brother- 2 in-law established physical relationship. Considering the contradictory stand of the husband the brother of the victim and the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C., let the petitioner, namely, Sanjeev Mahaseth in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in connection with Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 303 of 2009, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr. P.C. Anand Kr. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)