IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35977 of 2009 Jugeshwar Ram @ Ygeshwar Ram, S/o Kishun Ram, Vill-Mauar Khaira, P.S- Barun, Distt- Aurangabad. --------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar --------- Opp. Party ----------- 3 3.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner faces prosecution for offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code primarily on the ground that he was last seen with the husband of the informant whereafter, nothing has been heard about him (husband of the informant). Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the presumption of last seen is rebuttable presumption and can always be explained by other connecting circumstances. In this connection, he would submit that not only there is a delay of around thirteen days in filing of the complaint even when it was a case where the complainant-wife was all along aware of the fact that the petitioner being last seen in company of her husband was missing for all these thirteen days. He however has mainly laid his stress that delay 2 apart, when there are also materials to show in the Case Diary that the husband of the informant and the wife of the petitioner had developed some sort of soft feelings for each other and ultimately both of them were found to be missing by the police, it would be difficult to draw a presumption that the petitioner is behind the alleged offence for kidnapping the husband of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard has also referred to the averments that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Considering the aforementioned aspects specially the fact that the petitioner also stands to loose on account of elopement of the husband of the informant, inasmuch as, the wife of the petitioner also has not returned till date as has been clearly asserted in paragraph no.8 of the bail application, this Court would direct for release of the petitioner, namely, Jugeshwar Ram @ Ygeshwar Ram on 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, Aurangabad in 3 connection with Aurangabad(M) P.S. Case No. 168 of 2008, subject to the condition that one of the bailors shall be close family relative of the petitioner. It goes without saying that the petitioner also must remain regularly present in course of trial. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)