IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9131 of 2010 JWALA PANDEY, Son of Late Radha Pandey, Resident of village Parcha, P.S. Chutia, District Rohtas …… . Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …. Opposite Party ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s K.N.Singh, Sr. Advocate and Dhanendra Chaubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. S. Dayal, A.P.P. For the informant : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate ------ 3 20.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the informant. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 366, 120B, 34, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it would be manifest from the first information report itself that the petitioner has been named only on the basis of suspicion and for the reason that he happens to be the father of co-accused Sri Ram Pandey, who is alleged to be the friend of main accused Amresh Chaubey. It is submitted that during the course of investigation the sister of the deceased had clearly stated that there was a relationship between the deceased girl and co-accused Amresh Chaubey which - 2 - led to the pregnancy of the girl also. It has also been submitted that it would be manifest from the first information report that the girl had left her house at 11.00 in the night at her own and did not return back and subsequently, after four days her dead body was recovered and cause of death has been stated due to strangulation. It is also contended that none of the witnesses during the course of investigation stated that the petitioner was involved in the killing of the girl. However, after more than one month few witnesses have stated that they had seen 10 – 12 persons while disposing of the dead body into the river and one of them had stated that he had informed the informant on telephone regarding the presence of dead body in the river on 11.11.2009 itself. However, the dead body was recovered on 13.11.2009. Thus, it is contended that even if the allegation under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is believed to be true, the same also appears to be an after thought in view of the fact that neither the informant nor any of such witnesses have immediately disclosed the aforesaid fact before the police. It is also contended that on that pretext almost - 3 - all entire family member of the petitioner has been made accused. Learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted that it has come during the course of investigation that since the son of petitioner, namely, the co-accused Sri Ram Pandey and the main accused Amresh Chaubey were friends and the deceased girl used to visit this petitioner and which was the place of their meeting, therefore, finger of suspicion automatically is raised towards the petitioner. In reply thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid submission is nothing more than suspicion and the same cannot be assumed to be correct. It is also submitted that it has nowhere come that the petitioner, who is father of co- accused Sri Ram Pandey, the friend of Amresh Chaubey (main accused) was involved in the killing of the girl. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that after one month some of the witnesses have said the petitioner was one amongst 10 – 12 persons, who was seen by them while disposing of the dead body. But he - 4 - also accepts that this fact is neither reflected in the first information report nor has been disclosed on any earlier occasion by any body though one of the witnesses had allegedly informed the informant on 11.11.2009 regarding the dead body. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner, JWALA PANDEY, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No. 16 of 2009, with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner must be a close relative or family member of the petitioner, who shall file affidavit before the concerned court giving complete genealogy to show his or her relationship with the petitioner. Further the petitioner will be well represented on each and every date during the course of trial and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation then the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds - 5 - of the petitioner. The trial court shall proceed with the trial without being prejudiced with any finding/ direction or observation made in this order. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)