IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42840 of 2009 TONI JHA son of Vivekanand Jha, resident of Mohalla- Chhoti Khanjarpur, P. S. Barari, District- Bhagalpur…. Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 2. 17.12.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner facing prosecution for offence under Sections 342, 366(A), 354, 504, 509/34 of the IPC has his defence that the allegation, in fact, of either kidnapping or outraging the modesty of the alleged minor girl is against Rakesh and Keshav and the only involvement of the petitioner as with regard to making effort in rescuing Rakesh apprehended at the spot would also not inspire confidence because the victim girl has given in writing before the court below that the petitioner actually had identified to help the victim girl in the rescue from the college of Rakesh and Rinku. Counsel for the petitioner has also stressed that when both Rakesh and Rinku have already been released on bail and the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, the petitioner would be entitled for bail taking into the account that he is in custody 2 since 2.11.2009. In the opinion of this court, the petitioner would have been entitled for grant of bail had he surrendered immediately after the occurrence as was the case of co-accused Rakesh. The petitioner remained absconding for almost two years even when his name though as an accomplice had figured in the first information report itself. The grant of bail to co-accused Rakesh is primarily on account of his being juvenile and therefore when the occurrence in question seems to be admitted, the conduct of the petitioner in extending helping hand to Rakesh who had been apprehended at the spot would not minimize the gravity of the offence taking into account that the girl studying in college was being constantly chased and harassed by co- accused Rakesh and the petitioner an elderly person instead of bringing Rakesh on right track had run away the mobile phone of Rakesh having failed in his bid to rescue the apprehended Rakesh at the spot as is clearly alleged by the victim girl in the first information report with an intention to do away the material evidence which could have 3 been gathered from the phone calls made from the aforesaid mobile. That being so, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected with a liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completion of further four months of his judicial custody from today. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)