IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3154 of 2011 VIJAY MAHTO @ PAPPU MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 18.03.2011. Prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier refused by this court vide order dated 12.7.2010, with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after six months if no substantial progress in trial is recorded. As per prosecution case, on 23.10.2006 the petitioner’s son, namely, Jitendra Mahto took out informant’s son from his house on the pretext of playing cricket, thereafter he did not return and his decomposed dead body was recovered on 28.10.2006 from the field harvested by Sitaram Mahto. All the family members of Sitaram Mahto were found absent from the house. It is further stated in the FIR that one Basuki Devi @ Barti Devi, mother-in-law of Sitaram Mahto practises witchcraft/Jadu-Tona. Accused Kari Devi was in friendly term with Basuki Devi. The informant further alleges that 2 months old grand son of Sitaram Mahto was ill and to make him well, the petitioner and other accused persons offered his son, Golu to the Deity. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his role along with other nine named accused, namely, Jitendra Mahto, Sitaram Mahto, Pramod Mahto, Munni Devi, Basuki @ Barti Devi, Kari Devi, Jitendra Chaudhhary etc. in killing the informant’s son as mark of offering to the Deity, has come in the confessional statement of co-accused Babita Devi. She confessed that co-accused Kari Devi had cut the neck of Golu, whereas the petitioner and Sitaram Mahto had caught hold of the hands of the deceased. The petitioner submits that his case is similar to accused Sitaram Mahto, who has already been allowed bail by different benchs of this Court along with Barti Devi @ Basuki Devi, Babita Devi, Pramod Mahto, Sangita Devi, Munni Devi, Sunita Devi. Petitioner is in custody since 27.12.2008. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner as above 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 the Addl Sessions Judge III, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 270 of 2009, Masaurhi Police Station Case No. 288 of 2006. Petitioner would not be absent physically for 3 two consecutive dates at a stretch till four prosecution witnesses are examined in trial, failing which his bail bond would be cancelled. Shashi (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)