IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7592 of 2011 Ganesh Singh, Son of Rangila Singh, resident of village – Basudeopur Sarai, P.S. – Sahebanj, District – Muzaffarpur. --------- Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar -----Opposite Party ****** For the petitioner : Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Adv. For the State : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ****** 05. 05.08.2011 Heard Sri S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner, who apprehends his arrest in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 194/2010 for the offences under Sections 328/302/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is named accused with allegation along with other co-named accused of abducting daughter of the informant. She was administered poisonous substance by the persons while being abducted and one of the associates committed rape upon her. She anyhow escaped and rushed away from that place in the way met with her father (informant) and narrated all sad happenings with her at the hands of accused persons including the 2 petitioner and soon thereafter lost her life during treatment. Submission is that petitioner has no criminal antecedent, he is one of agnates of her husband and the case is of false implication due to long enmity. Further learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that earlier vide order dated 26.07.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7560/2011, three of the co-accused namely, Arvind Singh @ Arbind Kumar, Prabhunath Singh and Rajesh Kumar Singh (upon whom specific allegation of committing sexual offence is attributed) have already been denied the privilege by this court, but at the same time, placing reliance upon the decisions of Apex Court in case of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565; and Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 694, further submitted that in spite of such denial to co-accused under similarly situated circumstance the petitioner deserves the privilege. 3 It would not be out of place to mention here that this application was filed simultaneous with Cr. Misc. No. 7560/2011 it could not be brought to the notice of this court that they are since before running concurrently nor it was pointed out at the relevant time by the learned counsel for the petitioner who argued in that case also. It is true that the learned counsel is now fair enough to point it out at the time of hearing of instant application the earlier rejection of the prayer of co-accuseds. On careful consideration of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases referred to above and the facts and circumstances of the instant case which have been suitably dealt with in the detailed order dated 26.07.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7560/2011, this court does not find any reason to change the view already taken. Consequently, prayer of the petitioner stands rejected. Rajeev/ ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)