ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the informant in FIR No. 16 of 2009 registered at Chutia Police Station. Respondent No.1, Amresh Chaubey, is one of the accused in the case. The offences alleged are under Sections 366, 120B/34 and 302 Indian Penal Code.

3. According to the allegations, the appellant's unmarried daughter Vandana Kumari aged 19 years was in love with respondent No.1 and when it was known that she had become pregnant, respondent No.1 with the aid of the co-accused brought her out of her house and strangulated her to death in a Rahar field and the dead body was stuffed in a sack and thrown in river Sone. The appellant, who worked at Garhwa in Jharkhand, got information that Vandana Kumari had gone missing from 9.11.2009 and he returned to his village and after making enquiries lodged the FIR in Chutia Police Station in the morning of 13.11.2009 under Sections 366, 120B/34 Indian Penal Code. After the dead body of Vandana Kumari was recovered from the river in the afternoon of 13.11.2009, Section 302 Indian Penal Code was also added in the FIR. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 14.11.2009. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was strangulation and the deceased was found to be pregnant. Statements of six witnesses were recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 14.12.2009. One of the co-accused, Jwala Pandey, was arrested on 18.01.2010 from Garhwa in Jharkhand. Respondent No.1, Amresh Chaubey and the other co-accused - Karuna Kumari and Sri Ram Pandey - filed petitions for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court, Rohtas. Their petitions for anticipatory bail were dismissed by the Sessions Court through a common order dated 08.02.2010. While rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail, the Sessions Court referred to the statements of witnesses recorded in paragraphs 4, 8, 26 to 32, 36, 37, 45, 48 and 74 to 79 of the Case Diary implicating the accused and held: "Considering the nature of the case and the allegations coming forth against the petitioners, it is certainly not a case to give the petitioners relief of anticipatory bail." Accused-petitioners were directed to surrender within 15 days and move for regular bail. The said order dated 08.02.2010 of the Sessions Court was challenged by respondent No.1 through Criminal Misc. No.6542 of 2010 filed in the High Court of Patna. The co-accused Karuna Kumari and Sri Ram Pandey also challenged the said order dated 08.02.2010 of the Sessions Court through Criminal Misc. No.6927 of 2010 filed in the High Court of Patna. The said Criminal Misc. No.6927 of 2010 filed by Karuna Kumari and Sri Ram Pandey was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 26.02.2010 holding: "There is reflection in the impugned order itself about the materials and evidence which has come against the petitioners during the course of investigation. It is a cold blooded murder of young girl of 19 years and roles have been played." Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected observing that the accused may surrender before the court below and urge all such points which may be available in the regular bail.

4. After investigation, Charge Sheet No.5/10 dated 16.04.2010 was filed against the accused Jwala Pandey under Sections 302, 201, 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Action for proclamation and attachment had been taken against the other accused persons including respondent No.1, as they were absconding. On 15.04.2010, the property of the absconder, respondent No.1, was attached under Section 83 Criminal Procedure Code.

5. Thereafter, Criminal Misc. No.6542 of 2010 filed by respondent No.1 came up for hearing before another learned Single Judge of the High Court on 19.07.2010. The prayer in the petition was allowed and, in the event of arrest or surrender, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail.

6. Aggrieved by the grant of anticipatory bail to respondent No.1,