IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8491 of 2008 KARU YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 14.5.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and A.P.P. representing the State. The petitioner is an accused for offence under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report and that his name has come only on the basis of confessional statement of one Amar Vishwakarma, co-accused, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Learned Counsel has very fairly produced a copy of the confessional statement of the said co-accused from which it transpires that the deceased was done to death in a brutal manner by the petitioner and one Dablu @ Ranjan along with Amar Vishwakarma. It is also stated therein that the murder of the deceased was caused because of some ongoing personal and family dispute with Amar Vishwakarma. From the order rejecting bail by the Court below, it appears that in the case diary, it has transpired in the course of investigation that Dablu and this petitioner were veteran criminals as was 2 corroborated in the statement of Amar Vishwakarma and the deceased was done to death and his whole body was cut into pieces and thrown away on the railway track under a well hatched conspiracy. In fact on the basis of such confessional statement, the police had further made search and seizure and certain recovery including the blood-stained towel and the iron rod used in course of occurrence have been recovered. In view of the seriousness of the allegation and recovery of incriminating materials on the basis of the inculpatory statement of co-accused Amar Vishwakarma, it cannot be said that the petitioner had not played any role in the brutal murder of the deceased by way of strangulating and killing the deceased and cutting his dead body into pieces as well as throwing them on a railway track. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and this application for bail of the petitioner Karu Yadav is accordingly rejected. At this stage, Counsel for the petitioner submits that a lady, namely, Anita Devi who is also a co-accused has already been granted bail. There is no dispute that the case of Anita Devi stands on a different footing inasmuch as the role of killing the deceased has been assigned only on the petitioner and Dablu as well as 3 Amar Vishwakarma and therefore, the fact that the aforementioned lady has been granted bail is of no avail for also granting bail to the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation, this application for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)