IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19318 of 2009 MUNNA YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.23413 of 2009 ONKAR YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.21118 of 2009 PUNIT YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 11.08.2009 All the three applications arise out of Rajauli P.S. Case no. 10/2009 instituted under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Section 302 of the Penal Code, and as such, they have been heard together. The present order shall govern all the three cases. Allegation in the F.I.R. is that the father of the informant had gone outside in connection with his business. The informant lastly received call from him that he was sitting with the petitioners. Soon thereafter, he received another call that his father was dead and the body was lying on National highway. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly there is no eye-witness as it would appear from the F.I.R. and different statements of the witnesses appearing in the case diary. It is contended by all the learned counsels that of course there is strong motive to commit the offence against co- accused Ramotar Yadav but not against the petitioners who are 2 only the co-villagers of the co-accused Ramotar Yadav. Learned counsel for the informant files counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant draws attention of the court to the various statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. Particular attention of the court was drawn to the statement made by Sudin Kumar. Counsels for the petitioners submit that such statements are being recorded almost three months after the alleged occurrence. Thus, there is an attempt on the part of the prosecution to implicate many persons in the case including the petitioners. Having regard to the materials available on record, this court is not inclined to admit them to bail. Their prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected. However, one fact is evident that such statements have been recorded at a belated stage, and as such, possibility of false implication, at this stage, cannot be ruled out. In that view of the matter, this court grants liberty to all the petitioners to apply for bail upon completion of 07 months from the date of the present order if the trial in the meanwhile does not commence. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)