IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27231 of 2009 1. MANOJ MANDAL, son of Late Bhavi Mandal, resident of village Chiknoutwa, P.S. Ghaitarh, District Madhepura 2. Suresh Sutihar, son of Prithivichandra Sutihar, resident of village Kajaha, P.S. and District Supaul Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 10.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner faces prosecution for offence u/s 364/34 I.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner has basically submitted that the case of all the five accused persons in this case being on the same and similar footing, once three of them, namely, Bechan Sutihar, Lakhan Mehta and Yogi Mehta, were granted bail by the court itself, there would be no reason for denying such bail to the petitioner. He has stated that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of eight months though nothing tangible has been found by the police in course of investigation against them as well. On perusal of the case diary and the statement of wife of the victim, which stands corroborated by the other witnesses 2 also, one thing gets admitted that on the fateful day these two petitioners had accompanied the victim who had left the village on a motorcycle in their company and even when these two petitioners had returned back, the trace of the victim was not found and when the wife of the victim went to know the whereabouts of her husband she had found these two petitioners severely injured and having bandage in their hands. Though the counsel for the petitioners has tried to develop the story which was also given before the police that such injury was sustained by the two petitioners in a train dacoity on the fateful day, but no material has come in the case diary to substantiate this part of train dacoity. That apart the petitioners were the persons who were last seen with the deceased whereafter he is still traceless. In that view of the matter, the case of the petitioners cannot be said to be same as that of the three aforementioned co-accused who have been granted bail and as against whom the finger of suspicion had been raised on the ground of their plotting a design for kidnapping/ 3 abduction of the husband of the informant which was ultimately executed by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court would not be inclined to grant bail to the petitioners and their prayer for bail is rejected. Their trial, however, may be expedited. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/