IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44213 of 2010 BABLOO KUMAR SON OF RAMASHISH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RANGPUR, P.S. ATRI, DISTRICT-GAYA. …..PETITIONER. VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR. …..OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- 04. 06.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State as also for the informant. Neemchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 22 of 2008 under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged on 07.05.2008 against unknown. The name of the petitioner has been disclosed by the injured 20 days later under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The prayer for bail was rejected on 17.05.2010 in Cr. Misc. No. 16511 of 2010 after noticing the submission of the informant that the petitioner was the assailant of the deceased identified at 6.15 P.M. in the evening in the month of May during broad day light. Renewing the prayer for bail, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused named in similar manner along with the petitioner has been granted bail in Cr. Misc. Case No. 33700 of 2010. The bail order of the latter proceeds on the premise of his being named on confession of co-accused and that he was not an accused till the submission of the first charge-sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner files a supplementary affidavit today annexing the charge-sheet. He points out that the identification of the petitioner in broad day 2 light at 6.15 P.M. in the evening in the month of May when the sun had not even set was by voice. Let the petitioner above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with Neemchak Bthani P.S. Case No. 22 of 2008. Both the sureties must be his father and mother respectively whose photographs and proof of residence shall be appended to the bail bond to be verified through the local police before final acceptance. The court shall explain to the bailors about their responsibility should the petitioner jump bail. The petitioner is required to be properly represented on each date in the trial under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and he shall also be required to be physically present on such dates that the court below shall so direct. In case of failure the trial court shall be at liberty to deal with properly, in accordance with law. The incongruousness of the charge sheet is too apparent to ignore 6.15 P.M. in the month of May has broad day light with the sun shining. The informant stated in the FIR that he could identify by face and then names the petitioner subsequently. There is no statement that the accused had their face covered. The ingenuity of the investigating officer to overcome identification and to make out a ground for bail, obviously for a money consideration, talks of identification by 3 voice in this broad day light/sun shine. Either the investigating officer is unfit for the post or has deliberately acted in a manner contrary to law to aid the accused, whoever it may be, by gross misuse of his powers for investigation in uniform. The trial Court is cautioned to be careful during trial and ensure that it does not act as a mute spectator but puts proper questions to the witnesses in accordance with law even if the A.P.P. was wanting, to ensure justice. The Court expects the Director General of Police, Bihar to examine the nature of investigation so that it does not end up as a mockery and a travesty of justice. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, Bihar. Devendra/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)