IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23358 of 2009 Lalan Sah s/o Shiv Prasad Sah of vill- Pakridayal, P.S. Pakridayal, Dist. East Champaran…. Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR .. Opp. Party ----------- 4. 22.02.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The allegation for offence under Sections 363 A, 365, 367 and 374 of the Indian Penal Code naming the petitioner to be the person who was primarily responsible for taking away the son of the informant from the village for his being sent to Banglore ordinarily could not have made him liable, if the petitioner’s defence had remained confined to the fact that the son of the informant had left such job at the place of petitioner on his own and had gone to Banglore for a better prospect with a view to earn more money. The fact which however has transpired in course of investigation is that the petitioner knew the details of employment of the son of the informant at Bangalore and had gone to Bangalore at the placed he had got him employed and yet the boy was found to be missing even till now are such links which collectively would go to show that an innocent boy was forcibly taken by the 2 petitioner to Banglore for his employment and thereafter he is still traceless. In that view of the matter, the petitioner would not be entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. That being so, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. However, in the event the petitioner would surrender and pray for regular bail, the court below would consider his such prayer on its own merits without being prejudiced in any manner by this order. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)