IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26019 of 2009 Dablu Singh @ Rajesh Singh, Son of Sri Surendra Singh, Resident of Village Gadhwa Vishanpur, P.S. Majorganj, District Sitamarhi. --------- Petitioner Versus State of Bihar -------- Opp. Party With Cr.Misc. No.43151 of 2009 Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Singh, Son of Sathrughan Singh, Resident of Village Mahadev, P.S. Sahiyara, District Sitamarhi. ------- Petitioner Versus State of Bihar -------- Opp. Party ----------- 3 16.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State in both the cases. The petitioners, facing prosecution for an offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, had their defence that there is nothing against them save and except confessional statement of the petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Singh, which has either implicated him or the co-accused Dablu Singh @ Rajesh Singh and others. Learned counsel for both the petitioners in fact have gone to the extent that when it has come in the confessional statement of the petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Singh that the fatal gun shot injury was caused by one Chhotu Singh and one of such persons accompanying Chotu Singh on the motorcycle, namely, Rakesh Singh has been granted bail by the court below 2 itself, the petitioners having cases at the identical footings on account of their also not causing fatal gun short injury, would be entitled for release on bail. This Court, having called for case diary, has found therein that the petitioners have a dubious and chequered past, inasmuch as, they are notorious criminals of the area. The petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Singh in fact on being apprehended had given details of plan which was usually not available with the police if he had not divulged the whole thing. Such disclosure by Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Singh, being inculpatory in nature, would definitely bind him as also other co-accused to the extent as is permissible under the Evidence Act. The order granting bail to co-accused Rakesh Singh by the court below also having been based on the clear impression that he had not been assigned any role even in the confessional statement of Anil by itself would distinguish his case inasmuch as these two petitioners have been assigned specific role and as such they cannot expect to be released on bail only because the fatal gun shot injury was given by one Chotu Singh. If as per the plan revealed 3 in the confessional statement, the inmates of the motorcycle had caught and surrounded the victim from all the three sides and one of them caused fatal gun shot injury, the others also cannot get benefit by claiming they were not involved in the main offence. That being so, when the petitioner, namely, Dablu Singh, was also riding on one of the motorcycle and was hovering near the place of occurrence as per plan it cannot be said that his implication at the instance of confession of the co-accused petitioner Anil Kumar Singh, who has also implicated himself in a plan and design/conspiracy of the occurrence, is false. Considering all these aspects of the matter, this Court is not inclined to release the two petitioners on bail and accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners, namely, Dablu Singh @ Rajesh Singh and Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Singh is hereby rejected with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial of the petitioners. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)