IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43709 of 2009 DHIRENDRA SINGH son of Dilkeshwar Singh @ Teni Singh, resident of village Kamta, Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda, … …Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … OPPOSITE PARTY with Cr.Misc. No.8745 of 2010 MATHTHA SINGH @ BIPIN KUMAR son of late Rajeshwar Singh, resident of village Kamta, Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda, … …Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … OPPOSITE PARTY For the Petitioners: M/s G.K. Jha, S.K. Jha, Mukesh Advocates For the Informant : Mrs. Bela Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP ----------- 12 30.04.2010 Both these applications arise out of Hilsa Police Station Case No. 227/09 and, as such, they have been heard and considered together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are in custody and seek bail in a case registered for offences punishable under sections 393/302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The allegation set up in the first information report 2 is that the deceased prior to his death after receiving gun shot injury had disclosed to the informant regarding names of four persons including these two petitioners, who had accosted him and caught hold of him and thereafter three persons, out of four, dragged him in a field. It is stated that when the deceased identified the aforesaid four accused persons, they again dragged him on the road and two of them, namely, accused Maththa Singh (petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8745 of 2010) and co-accused Chandramani fired one pistol shot each upon the deceased, due to which he died subsequently. However, the first information report could not be lodged immediately, but the same was lodged on the next day at about 11.00 AM. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there had been delay in lodgment of the first information report. Even though soon after the injury and death of the deceased, much hue and cry was raised by the villagers by jamming the road etc. and even though the Additional Superintendent of Police reached the spot along with the police force within 30-40 minutes, nothing of the sort was disclosed to him by any person, which would be evident from the supervision notes of the Additional Superintendent of 3 Police as well as the Superintendent of Police, which have been brought on record of these cases. That apart, it would be evident from the supervision notes aforesaid that wrong line of investigation was being done by the police and the petitioners were falsely implicated in this case, as suspicion was raised against one Uday Shankar, who is “Sarhu” of the deceased and as it has also come that there was some dispute between them with regard to purchased money of certain land. It is further submitted that at the insistence and demand of the villagers dog squad was requisitioned and called, which indicated towards the house of the aforesaid Uday Shankar. On perusal of the records of the cases, the Superintendent of Police had directed for submitting final form against both these petitioners. The role of Rahul, who was also accompanying the deceased, was also doubted, as has been explained in both the supervision notes of the Supervising Officers. It is also very interesting that the informant had heard two gun shots and there are two gun shot injuries upon the person of the deceased, however, it is very mysterious as to how the aforesaid Rahul, who was also accompanying the deceased, also got firearm injury upon his hand and none hadheard the sound of third gun shot. It has been doubted that 4 he may be the real culprit. The petitioner Dhirendra Singh in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 43907 of 2009 is in custody sincle 29.06.2009 and chargesheet has been submitted in this case. So far the petitioner Maththa Singh alias Bipin Kumar is concerned, he is in custody since 31.07.2009. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the statement before the informant by his brother, who subsequently died, has to be treated as dying declaration and he had named four persons, who accosted him and caught hold of him, however, it is accepted by learned counsel for the informant that according to the first information report, the petitioner Dhirendra Singh in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 43709 of 2009 is not the assailant, but he was present along with the assailant. So far the petitioner Maththa Singh alias Bipin Kumar in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8745 of 2010 is concerned, he is the main assailant as per the first information report. It is further submitted that in fact, it has come during the course of investigation that the mobile phone of the petitioner Dhirendra Singh was recovered from the house of one Uday Shankar Singh. It is also stated that the petitioner Dhirendra Singh is having criminal antecedent, as he is involved in four other cases. Further contention is that 5 the Additional Superintendent of Police concerned supervised the case and submitted the supervision note prior to the submission of the chargesheet, but the Superintendent of Police concerned supervised and submitted the supervision note after submission of the chargesheet without taking leave of the court. It is submitted on behalf of the State that upon the consideration of the first information report and the materials collected during the course of investigation the investigating officer concerned found the case to be true and submitted chargesheet, however, the matter was supervised and on the basis of the materials other than the materials collected during the course of investigation, the Superintendent of Police and the Additional Superintendent of Police concerned have submitted supervision notes. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that it is common ground of the parties including informant that the petitioner Dhirendra Singh has not been shown as assailant in the first information report, rather the allegation of firing is specific against co- accused Maththa Singh alias Bipin Kumar, who is petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8745 of 2010, as well as co- 6 accused Chandramani, I direct the abovenamed petitioner DHIRENDRA SINGH in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 43709 of 2009 to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, in Hilsa Police Station Case No. 227/09 (G.R. No. 845/09) with further condition that one of the bailors must be close relative or family member of the petitioner, who shall state on affidavit before the court concerned, giving complete genealogy, as to how he or she is related with the petitioner. Further, the petitioner shall also remain present on each and every date during the course of the trial and if he fails to remain present on two consecutive dates in course of trial without any reasonable cause shown by him, the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. So far the petitioner Maththa Singh alias Bipin Kumar in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8745 of 2010 is concerned, since he is said to be the assailant, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail for the present. As a result, the prayer for bail of the petitioner Maththa Singh alias Bipin Kumar in Criminal Miscellaneous 7 No. 8745 of 2010 is rejected at this stage. Steps should also be taken for expediting the trial. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)