IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36333 of 2009 UCHIT KUMAR @ UCHIT KUMAR SAH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03/ 11-12-2009 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and learned counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner is an accused in Dumra P.S. Case No. 65 of 2009 for offences punishable under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently Sections 302 and 201 IPC was added. Substance of allegation as set out in the F.I.R. is that the son of the informant was taken away by accused Sunil Kumar on the pretext of seeing a cinema on 15.2.2009 but he did not return. During the course of investigation the name of this petitioner transpired on the basis of statement of one Sudhir Kumar @ Neta Ji. It is on that basis that this petitioner was arrested in the case by the statement of Sudhir Kumar made in paragraph 17 of the case diary disclosing the manner in which the victim son of the informant was done to death by the accused Sunil Mandal by chopping of his neck. On the statement of the said Sudhir Kumar, the body of the boy was recovered from the ditch which is said to have been dug by one Tinku along with accused Sunil. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there is no evidence in the case diary against him save and except the confessional statement of one Sudhir Kumar with - 2 - whom there is land dispute. Learned counsel further submits that there is no allegation as to whether petitioner was a part of kidnapping or in the death of the victim boy. A perusal of the matter shows that whereas that the accused Sunil Kumar is the main accused who has not only kidnapped the victim boy but has also killed him by chopping of his neck and thereafter has tried to eliminate evidence. Learned counsel thus submits that the petitioner has been arrested on suspicion and on the basis of statement of said Sudhir Kumar. Learned counsel for the informant submits that he is also involved in similar case of kidnapping and as such does not deserve the privilege of bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer of bail made by the petitioner. Having regard to the circumstances set forth, let petitioner Uchit Kumar @ Uchit Kumar Sah be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in connection with Dumra P.S. Case No. 65 of 2009 subject to the following conditions:- (a) That one of the bailor would be the father of the petitioner; (b) That the petitioner would be attending the court below one each and every date and the failure on the part of the petitioner to attend the court below on two consecutive dates would grant liberty to - 3 - the court below to initiate proceedings for cancellation of his bail bonds and for taking him into custody; (c) That in case this petitioner is found involved in any further criminal case in that case also the court below would be at liberty to cancel his bail bonds and for taking him into custody. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)