IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53028 of 2008 PARMESHWAR MANJHI, son of Shivbalak Manjhi, R/O village Angauta, P.S. Nautan, District - Siwan Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 02.02.2009 Heard. The case has been registered on the basis of a petition of complaint under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. under sections 363 and 365 of the IPC. The story is that the accused persons who were working in Delhi, impressed upon the complainant that the life there was good on account of payment of good wages and that his son, if allowed to be taken there, may earn handsome salary. The basic allegation appears made at page 3 of the complaint petition and it is stated that accused Raju Manjhi, Mantu Manjhi and Sujit Manjhi pressed upon the complainant to allow his son to be taken to Delhi. The contention is that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the above context. However, allegation made in the complaint petition is that the complainant did neither receive any salary nor could have any information about the whereabout of his son and as such, he went to Delhi and could not trace out his son nor he was able to meet him. In the above context the attention of the court has been drawn to Annexure 2, which is a counter foil of money order indicating that the informant was receiving money orders regularly from his son and the contention in that context is that the informant’s son probably was working some where else within his knowledge. The last contention is that the element of deceit or use of force for - 2 - taking away lawful guardianship is completely absent as it was a consented act of allowing the son to be taken to Delhi. Let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5000/(five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Siwan in Nautan P.S. Case no. 80 of 2008. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)