IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2211 of 2011 MANOHAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 01.04.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in prayer portion of the petition. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chiraiya (Shikarganj) P.S. Case No. 55 of 2010 registered under Sections 366 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged against Chhotu Kumar Singh, the son of the petitioner, to have enticed away the daughter of the informant. It appears that the petitioner being the father of said Chhotu Kumar Singh assisted his son in committing the crime. This fact has been supported by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P. C. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Chhotu Kumar Singh has been granted regular bail by a 2 Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 40391 of 2010. I see no reason for the learned court below to give the same privilege to the petitioner since the thrust of the accusation is against Chhotu Kumar Singh and not against the petitioner. Let the learned court below consider the regular bail application of the petitioner and try to dispose off the same preferably on the same day considering the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged after ten days of the occurrence, if the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail within a period of four weeks from today. With this observation, the application is disposed off. Let the order be faxed to the learned S.D.J.M., Sikrahna at Motihari in connection with Chiraiya(Shikarganj) P.S. Case No. 55 of 2010 at the cost of the petitioner. U. K. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)