IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41852 of 2009 AMIT SINGH SON OF MOHAL LAL SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.42795 of 2009 NIKHIL SINGH SON OF NARAD SINGH @ VIJAY KUMAR SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 06/01/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted that the First Information Report was instituted by one Abhay Kumar Shahi on information collected from those persons who had witnessed this occurrence and had disclosed the names of Alind Rai and Pramod Kumar Pandey as one amongst five motorcycle borne miscreants who had committed the occurrence. This report was made by Abhay Kumar Shahi at the Hospital at 11.00 A.M. whereas the occurrence had taken place at about 8.45 A.M. i.e. 2 hours and 15 minutes later. After the First Information Report was instituted, the statement of one Bipin Kumar Singh, the brother-in-law of one of the deceased namely, Jitendra Shahi was recorded as a purported eye witness who stated the names of five accused including the petitioners but omitted two names i.e. Alind Rai and Pramod 2 Kumar Pandey, the two F.I.R. named accused whose names were disclosed by the other witnesses present at the place of occurrence, thereby increasing the number of accused to seven. In paragraph-16, the statement of Jitendra Singh, the cousin of Bipin Kumar was examined who also stated likewise. Thereafter other witnesses including the sister of deceased Jitendra Shahi was recorded who also gave similar statement. It is not explained as to why these witnesses who were close relative of the deceased did not name the present petitioner at the earliest instance even though, the Informant had collected information from those who were present in the area and incorporated their version in the First Information Report. The reason for the occurrence is undoubtedly some contractual differences between the parties and the submission is that the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out under the circumstances. Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts let the petitioners above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah in connection with Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 166 of 2009 subject to the following conditions: (i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioners. (ii) That the bailor shall also state on affidavit that 3 he will inform the court concerned if the petitioners are implicated in any other case of similar nature after their release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse. (iii)That the petitioners will give an undertaking that they will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if they fail to do so on two given dates and delays the trial in any manner, their bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse. (iv)That the petitioners will be well represented on each date and if they fail to do so on two consecutive dates, their bail will be liable to be cancelled. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)