IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17378 of 2010 VIJAY MAHTO @ PAPPU MAHTO Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 12.7.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case under sections 302, 201 and 120B of the Penal Code. This is a case where a small boy has scarified his life on alter of conventional belief that a child’s sacrifice can bring good omen for a family. The confessional statement of one Babita Devi recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. point towards involvement of various accused persons namely Pramod Mahto, Jitendra Mahto, Sitaram Mahto, Pramod Mahto, Vijay, Muni Devi, Sunita Devi, Basuki @ Barti Devi, Kari Devi in killing of a small boy Golu Kumar as a mark of offering to the diety. Counsel for the petitioner submits that almost all the accused persons save and except Kari Devi who had cut the throat have been allowed bail by different Benches of this court. The case of the petitioner is similar to one Sangita Devi, if the statement of Babita Devi recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. is to be believed. The petitioner is alleged to have held the hand of Golu Kumar and co-accused Sangita Devi, who is stated to have caught the legs of Golu Kumar has been allowed bail by a bench of this court. The petitioner submits that Babita Devi in her 2 KHAN statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that one Sita Ram Mahto who is alleged to have held the boy Golu Kumar along with petitioner has also been allowed bail by order dated 9.3.2010, passed in Cr.Misc.No.18987 of 2010. Further more, the petitioner is in custody since 27.12.2008. Counsel for the informant and the State submit that the role of Vijay Mahto is larger than the role of Sita Ram Mahto and Sangita Devi. According to him, it is Vijay Mahto who prepared a plan to offer the child Golu Kumar to diety. He was instrumental in making Golu to eat intoxicated laddu to make him subconscious and sedate. Further more, according to statement of Babita Devi petitioner thrushed cloth in the mouth of Golu, before sacrificing him. Having considered the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail is rejected. However, if there is no substantial progress is in the trial, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months. (S.P.Singh,J)