IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8672 of 2010 BALESHWAR MAHTO Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 24.5.2010 Heard the learned counsel Sri Shashi Kant Kumar appearing on behalf of the petitioner Baleshwar Mahto who is in custody since 25.1.2008 in Kalyanpur P.S. Case No.06/08 under sections 364,366 and 120B of I.P.C. Heard the learned A.P.P. for the State also. According to the prosecution case the informant Gokhul Mahto lodged the F.I.R. alleging that his daughter Nitu Devi was married with this petitioner. After marriage she was being subjected to cruelty and thereafter the petitioner made her disappear. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similarly situated case co-accused have been granted bail in Cr.Misc.No.19730/08 on 18.9.2008 and Cri.Misc. No.28801/08. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and is languishing in jail custody since 25.1.2008. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. objected the prayer for bail. It appears that the daughter of the informant Nitu Devi had fled away from the custody of the persons with whom she was sold by the petitioner and to this effect she herself has given statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. which has been annexed as Annexure-2 with the bail application as stated in which she has 2 stated that her husband, i.e., this petitioner had taken her to Chapra on the pretext for being examined by the doctor where he sold her to Police Rai and Dinesh Rai who in turn sold her to tinku Yadav taking to Rajasthan. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the co-accused persons. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. AnilKr.Sinha ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. )