IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3320 of 2011 MD. JABUL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 17.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner is named in the first information report and, allegedly, the informant had been kept in the house of the petitioner. The statement of informant has been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., in which she also stated the name of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as a matter of fact, informant was a consenting party and she had herself come in the trade of prostitution but when the local people caught her, she lodged the instant case with exaggerated story. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention towards Annexure-2, which is Photostat copy of the F.I.R. of Routa P.S. Case No. 55 of 2010, which had been lodged on the written report of Circle Officer. Even if, Annexure-2 is taken into account, then also, the statement of informant appears to be true. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of the parties, I do not feel it proper to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Routa P.S Case No. 54 of 2010, stands rejected. Shahzad (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J )