IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19826 of 2009 RINTOO SHARMA @ DEEPAK KUMAR, SON OF BABAN SHARMA, VILLAGE- DHOBI BIGHA, P.S.- RAMPUR CHAURAM, DISTRICT- ARWAL.----PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 10.6.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioner is made accused in a case under Sections 363, 366A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The case made out in the First Information Report is that the daughter of the informant had gone to her uncle (Chacha’s house) at about 9 p.m. on the date of occurrence but had not returned. The informant has alleged that one Mumtaz who was living in the house of Rintoo Sharma has kidnapped his daughter and has also alleged that Rintoo Sharma and one Vijay Lohar had helped Mumtaz in running away with the informant’s daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the informant are related with each other and further submits that he has no role to pay in the alleged kidnapping of the informant’s daughter. Moreover it is apparent from the First 2 Information Report that the girl has either been kidnapped or has run away with Mumtaz Sheikh. The learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the bail and submits that at least the petitioner should co- operate with the Investigating Officer in trying to find out the whereabouts of the girl. Undoubtedly the Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer are doing their best to trace the girl. Considering that the petitioner has no direct role to play in this entire case, I direct that he (Rintoo Sharma @ Deepak Kumar) should be released on bail in connection with Rampur Chauram P.S. Case No. 18 of 2009 on furnishing bail bond of rupees ten thousand with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)