IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24533 of 2010 MD.MOZAHID, SON OF MD. SAMAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PACHHONI BILASPUR, P.S.-HAYAGHAT, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 11.01.2011 Heard Mr. Farooque Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, learned Addl. P.P. The sole petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Hayaghat P.S. Case No. 14 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 363, 365, 366A of the Indian Penal Code and later on Sections 376 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was added, has prayed for grant of bail. In the present case on the basis of written report of father of deceased, a First Information Report was lodged. In the First Information Report it was disclosed that the daughter of the informant was traceless since 2.2.2010 and this written report was filed on 7.2.2010 before the Officer-in-Charge, Hayaghat police station. In the written report the informant had suspected the involvement of the petitioner and others in the crime. After lodging F.I.R. dead body of the daughter of the informant, who was aged about 14, years was recovered from a pond. Thereafter same was sent for post mortem examination and in the post mortem examination report it was found that she was raped and it was a case of strangulation. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 22.2.2010 and before the police the petitioner made a confessional 2 statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the bail petition, submits that it is a peculiar case in which despite the fact that the daughter of the informant was traceless since 2.2.2010 no step was taken either to inform the police or lodged any case immediately and only on 7.2.2010, the present case was instituted and on the same day the dead body was recovered from a pond. It was further submitted that the police got confessional statement recorded on two occasions. Firstly, he was confessed on 21.2.2010 and thereafter on 7.4.2010. It was further submitted that save and except confessional statement there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the crime. It was further submitted that as per the post mortem report the death had occurred in between 48-72 hours from date of the post mortem. The post mortem was held on 8th February, 2010. According to Mr. Khan, there is all probability that murder had taken place in between 5 and 6th February, 2010. Accordingly, it has been prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Mr. Mehta, Addl.P.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that on the date of occurrence on 2.2.2010 i.e. the date of missing of the daughter of the informant, the petitioner had a telephonic talk with the deceased. It was further submitted that the employer of the 3 petitioner during investigation had also said that from 4th February, 2010 the petitioner had not attended the office of the employer. Accordingly it was submitted that keeping in view the suspicion raised by the informant which, of course, is not admissible as well as from the submission of the employer, it is a case of circumstantial evidence showing involvement of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner particularly in view of the fact that the deceased was about 14 years old and before the murder she was also raped. Accordingly the petition stands rejected. Amit ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)