IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20684 of 2010 SUBASH SAO @ GUDDU SAO Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 15.07.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner is languishing in jail since 13.03.2010 in a case registered under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. It is alleged by the informant that her maternal grand-mother has been strangulated to death at the hands of her daughter-in-law and her friends. It is further alleged that the petitioner and one other Anuj alias Hannu Paswan had some illicit connection with the daughter-in-law of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only evidence is the statement of Nikki Kumari aged about 08 years as recorded in paragraph no. 10 of the case diary that it was the petitioner and others who strangulated the deceased. In this connection, it is submitted that if the witness would have seen the petitioner committing murder then 2 petitioner’s name ought to had been mentioned in the F.I.R. with specific allegation. It is further contended that apart from the statement of the minor child, there is no evidence against the petitioner in the entire case diary that has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the State. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present. The bail application of the petitioner is rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)