IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19026 of 2009 1. SWARAJ PASWAN,s/o late Jagat Paswan, resident of village-Khajautia,P.S.- Ghathoo,Dist.-Samastipur. 2. Sanjay Kumar Mehta,s/o Ram Chandra Mehta, resident of village-Ghathoo, P.S.-Ghathoo, Dist.-Samastipur. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 07-07-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the State. In the case petitioners have been alleged for dashing the complainant by the Motor cycle and committing rape upon her and taking away cash of rupees twelve hundred. As submitted, the matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer, who submitted final form recommending accusation under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Then as per learned counsel for the complainant protest petition was filed and cognizance was taken, which is well within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate but he could not reply that why cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 376/511 of the Penal Code only and what will happen for the recommendation made by the Investigating Officer against the complainant for accusation under Sections 182 and 211 of the Penal Code. For the cognizance Magistrate has to gather information from the sources enumerated under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which runs as follows : “190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence- (a)upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute 2 such offence; (b)upon a police report of such facts; ©upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub- section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.” All the three sources (a), (b) and (c) if can be separated from each other, I doubt specifically when recommendation is made for accusation under Sections 182 and 211 of the Penal Code but in any case circumstance prevailing in the case does not justify refusal of petitioners’ anticipatory bail when complainant is said to be maid of one Nand Kishore against whom petitioner no.1 had filed criminal case. In the suggested and discussed facts and circumstances, this petition for anticipatory bail is allowed. In case of arrest or surrender within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in C.R.No.42 of 2009/T.R.No.1936 of 2009, corresponding to Dalsingsarai (Ghatho) P.S.Case No.115 of 2008/Complaint Case No.238 of 2008, the above named petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Jai Ganesh Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dalasing Sarai, District-Samastipur, subject to the conditions as laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. AH/ ( Mandhata Singh, J. )