Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33040 of 2012 (3) dt.10-12-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33040 of 2012 ====================================================== Md. Mumtaj @ Mumtaj Nijam .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER 3 10-12-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This is a petition for grant of regular bail in a case under [STATUTE] . The informant is the husband of the deceased. It is alleged that the treatment of the deceased Bibi Ajmeri Khatoon was being done at Begusarai. However, on 04.08.2007 he kept the victim in the house of his brother-in-law, Md. Mumtaj @ Mumtaj Nijam. It is further alleged that on 27.08.2004 at about 4:30 A.M. he got information by his brother- in-law that his wife is serious and the informant reached there and it was learnt that on 24.08.2007 his wife went somewhere. His brother-in-law went to the house of the deceased where he was informed that the deceased did not come to her house and the dead body of the victim was recovered from a well. However, it is strange that the informant, the husband, states that he left the victim on 04.08.2007 for treatment and this petitioner did not inform the informant about missing of his wife on 24.08.2007 and only information about the missing of the victim was given on 27.08.2007. Why he delayed for three days in informing the informant casts a serious doubt though in his first information report he Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33040 of 2012 (3) dt.10-12-2012 casts a doubt that his father-in-law and brother-in-law killed the deceased. From perusal of the case diary, it is apparent that the dead body was found in a well at a distance of about 50 to 60 meters from the house of this petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the name of the petitioner finds place in the supervision note of the Dy. S. P. after four years. However, it is true that there is strong suspicion against the petitioner for his involvement in collusion with the informant. However, the case hinges on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the petitioner is answerable under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner is in jail custody since 20.04.2012, the petitioner above named is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, District - Samastipur in connection with Bibhutipur P. S. Case No. 142 of 2007, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear in the case on each and every date fixed by the learned court below and any absence of the petitioner shall be subject to the satisfaction of the learned court below on reasonable grounds. Kundan/- (Gopal Prasad, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.