IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43869 of 2009 ASHOK RAM Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 08-4-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ramnagar P.S. case No. 109 of 2009 dated 5.5.2009 registered under sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution case, deceased Seema Kumari was working as a performer (dancer) along with co- accused Anil Gupta in an Orchestra Party. Deceased is said to have demanded her lawful dues and threatened to inform the police about the illegal acts of the accused persons including the petitioner. She is alleged to have been strangulated to death by all four FIR named accused persons including the petitioner. Dead body of the deceased was recovered from the house of co-accused Bhola Khan which was allegedly taken on rent by co-accused Anil Gupta. Petitioner is specifically named in the FIR vide Annexure-1 as an accused for committing the crime of murder. By referring to Annexure-4, it was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that during the course of investigation - 2 - co-accused Anil Gupta was arrested by the police and his confessional statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 24.9.2009, wherein he had disclosed that the petitioner was owner of the orchestra party and he used to roam in the company of deceased Seema Kumari. An altercation is said to have taken place between the deceased and the petitioner on certain issues, where-after he (petitioner) killed the deceased with the help of two other persons. By placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Sidharth V. State of Bihar reported in A I R 2005 SC 4352 and in the case of Bishwa Nath Aggarwal V. Meena Gupta reported in (2000) 9 SCC 149, besides others, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that statement of co-accused Anil Gupta recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. was exculpatory in nature and therefore no reliance could be placed on such statements and petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is specifically named in the FIR as an accused and co-accused Anil Gupta has assigned specific role against the petitioner for committing the crime in question. - 3 - On perusal of materials available on record it is apparent that it is not only the exculpatory statements of co- accused Anil Gupta, on the basis of which the petitioner has been made an accused in the present case rather the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR as an accused and there are ample materials to show his complicity for committing the crime in question. In the aforesaid back ground, petitioner is not entitled to have the privilege of anticipatory bail and it is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner must surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised, which may be disposed of on its own merit. (Birendra Prasad Verma, j) M.Rahman