IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25840 of 2010 1. MD.RAISH, sonof md. Shaikh Hussaini 2. Md. Jahangir @ Miran @ Md. Jahangir Alam, S/o – Md. Raish. 3. Md. Shahid @ Md. Saeed @ Chintu, son of Md. Raish, All R/o – Mohalla Shah Market, P.S. Kotwali, District – Bhagalpur. 4. Md. Naushad @ Naushad, son of Md. Gulam Rasool, resident of village – Hussainabad, P.S. Mojahidpur, District – Bhagalpur. --------- Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR -------- Opposite Party. 03. 06.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioners are named accused in this protest complaint case arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 460 of 2005 and earlier petitioner nos. 1,3 and 4 had preferred Cr. Misc. No. 45711 of 2005 during pendency of investigation of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 460 of 2005 for anticipatory bail but prayer of petitioner nos. 1 & 3 was refused but by same order privilege was granted to petitioner no.4, but neither there was any reference in the original application here nor it finds mention in order of the learned Sessions Judge. Though, by supplementary affidavit on behalf of petitioners, the facts have been brought. - 2 - However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the application with respect to petitioner nos. 1,3 and 4 with a liberty to surrender before the court below and seeks regular bail from there. Prayer is granted. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with respect to petitioner nos. 1,3 and 4. So far petitioner no.2 is concerned, undisputedly, there was earlier one U.D. Case No. 06/2005 with respect to unnatural death of deceased brother of the complainant informant instituted at the instance of his maternal uncle, wherein it was said that deceased committed suicide by self-administration of poison as per his own statement made before informant. However, as it reveal a fortnight thereafter at the instance of complainant Kotwali P.S. Case No. 460 of 2005 was instituted, wherein he appeared as eye witness alleging that present petitioner besides other named accused persons along with the deceased arrived near Dargah and petitioner brought one packet containing Laddu from there and provided - 3 - the same to the deceased and others, sometime thereafter deceased fell ill and during the course of treatment died. The informant though made attempt to call him but in this way he disclose his presence before the accused persons who got hold of him and threatened for dire consequences if he discloses anything before the police. After investigation, finding the case though found unnatural death of deceased but finding nothing against either of the petitioners submitted final form which was accepted, matter proceeded on protest complaint where the court after recording statement of the witnesses and complainant finding no case refused to take cognizance giving rise to Criminal Revision No. 57/2010, only thereafter cognizance was taken in this case giving rise to instant application. There is some variation in the statement of complainant informant as regard to role of the petitioner at the relevant time. In the complaint petition on the basis whereof present case is going on is specific that the petitioners simply brought the packet containing Laddu from which Md. Raish took out - 4 - the Laddu and perforce got the same taken by the deceased. Taking into consideration all such aspects, in the event of his arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, let the petitioner namely, Md. Jahangir @ Miran @ Md. Jahangir Alam, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in connection with Complaint Case No. C-108/2010 (arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 460/2005, G.R. No. 1904/2005), subject to condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code with additional condition to remain physically present before the court below on each and every date till disposal of the case, in case of failure on two consecutive dates, the liberty shall be deemed to be cancelled. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)