IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42212 of 2009 SAHINDRA @ SHAILENDRA SAO, S/O Sri Baldeo Sao Resident of village Maharaj Bigha (Paddumchak), P.S. Khizer Sarai, Distt. Gaya. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 3/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, facing prosecution along with one Manoj Devi for the offence under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, has his defence that the aforementioned case filed against him is counter blast version of the earlier case filed by the petitioner being Khizer Sarai P.S. Case No.59 of 2009 dated 26.4.2009. He would also submit that the Informant is not an eye witness and therefore when it was the prosecution party who first brunt the house of the petitioner as per the F.I.R. of Khizer Sarai P.S. Case No. 59 of 2009, the petitioner would be entitled for grant of bail. Probably, this Court could have accepted such defence had it not noted the obvious ante-dating made by the police officer in recording the police case lodged by the petitioner as is also reflected from the following findings of the court below in the impugned order:- "............ The learned lawyer for the accused/petitioner submitted that this case is counter blast Khizersarai P.S. Case no. 59/09 filed by the petitioner of this case on the family members of the informant, but from perusal of 2 the written report of the accused/petitioner, it appears that he gave the written report to the police on 27.04.2000, but the police instituted case on 26.4.2009 a day prior to written report. " Infact such interpolation and ante-dating is clearly established from naked eye by a mere perusal of the contents of the written report of the petitioner which is Annexure-2 to this bail application, which was filed by the petitioner only on 27.4.2009 which gets also substantiated from its recitals and contents wherein he proceeds to narrate the incident which had taken on 26.4.2009 by describing it ‘Yesterday’. Therefore there would be no difficulty in coming to such conclusion on the basis of the photo copy of the written report which is a copy of its original that though the petitioner had filed the written statement on 27.4.2009 the police officer had registered Khizer Sarai P.S. Case No.59 of 2009 dated 26.4.2009 and directed one Basudeo Prasad Singh, A.S.I. to investigate the case in the date of 26.4.2009. This is apparently not only forgery in the government records but a clear case of ante dating the F.I.R. filed by the petitioner in order to bestow favour to the petitioner. This Court therefore on the basis of such antedated tainted, procured and collusive F.I.R. cannot accept the plea of counter blast version so as to discredit the version of the informant of this case. 3 The next submission that the Informant was not an eye witness also does not appeal to this court, inasmuch as, the informant has clearly stated that on 27.4.2009 at about 2 P.M. the petitioner in a company of Manoj Devi had put his house on fire. Thus at least from reading of the F.I.R. filed by the Informant it cannot be said that she was not an eye witness. Specially when it is found that this case was instituted as Khizer Sarai P.S. Case No.60 of 2009 on 28.4.2009 reporting occurrence of 27.4.2009. In that view of the matter, this Court would find nothing so as to discredit the version of the prosecution for the purposes of releasing the petitioner on bail specially when there is direct allegation against him of setting the house of the Informant on fire and reducing it to the ashes. This Court at the same time having found a shocking state of affairs in which Khizer Sarai Police station is working, cannot shut its eyes as was done by the court below and would accordingly direct the Superintendent of Police, Gaya to look into this aspect by examining the records of both the First Information Report and thereafter if he would find, as he must, that there was an obvious discrepancies in ante-dating the F.I.R. of Khizer Sarai P.S.Case No. 59 of 2009 by the Officer Incharge and the investigating officer he would take appropriate 4 disciplinary action for major punishment against such Officer Incharge and Investigating Officer within a period of three months. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is dismissed with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Gaya for its compliance and submission of an action taken report within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of this order. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)