IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49709 of 2008 SRIKANT KUMAR CHAUDHARY @ SRIKANT CHAUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 10.12.2008 Heard. This is a case registered under Section 366A IPC and the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the basis of the argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to wait for the evidence of the informant. Even the Case diary was not looked into for verifying the age of the lady. Annexure-2 is the copy of the Medical report and it is indicated by it that the lady was found in between 17-19 years of age. The case has been registered under Section 366 A IPC and the allegation is that the petitioner enticed away the daughter of the informant. But the lady in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.(Annexure-3) stated that she herself married to the present petitioner and was lilving with her since 2007 as his legally weded wife and carry child in her womb. This is an example of incompetence and poor application of judicial mind and shirking judicial duties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, namely, Srikant Kumar Chaudhary @ Srikant Chaudhary be released from custody on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand)with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge-FTC-I, Arrah, in connection with - 2 - Sessions Trial No.265/2008. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below. SKBOSE (Dharnidhar Jha)