IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33412 of 2009 RAMCHANDRA MAHATO, S/O Late Muktinath Mahato, Resident of Village-Deurwa, P.S. Bhairoganj, District-West Champaran. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 6/10/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Considering the fact that it is the wife of the petitioner who is said to be missing and alleged to be killed by the petitioner, this Court is not prepared to accept the defence of the petitioner who takes credit in informing this Court that for recovery of his missing wife he had only informed his father-in-law, Informant. Such negligent/suspicious conduct of the petitioner would go to show as to what role he had played in his real life. This Court could have drawn adverse inference for the delay on the part of the Informant in filing the case about missing of his daughter, the wife of the petitioner, for a period of three months, but even that cannot confer any benefit to the husband petitioner with whom the wife was living for the last thirteen years and yet he had admittedly not taken any steps either for tracing out or recovery of his wife in this period of three months. Thus the plea of delay in filing of the First Information Report taken by the petitioner is also of no avail. This Court, thus on the basis of materials on record 2 and for the reasons recorded above, is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. Let the trial of the petitioner be expedited. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)