IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27256 of 2008 1. TUNNU RAI @ BIJAYENDRA RAI 2. JITENDRA RAI Both sons of Nathuni Rai, resident of Village Ganauli, P.S. Bettiah Muffasil, District West Champaran --------Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR --------Opposite Party ----------- 3 11.11.2008 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The learned counsel for the informant has also appeared on his own and filed Vakalatnama, which is being kept on the record. The petitioners are accused for an offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Bettiah Muffasil P.S. Case No.68 of 2008. The allegation against the petitioners are that the son of the informant, aged about 15 years, was living with the petitioners along with co-accused Chunnu, who happens to be the brother of petitioner no.1. On account of suspected stealing of mobile phone, the son of the informant was thrashed in a room. The son of the informant anyhow with severely injured condition reached his house and on the next day, he was having acute pain in his chest. Thereafter the son of the informant with the help of co-accused Chunnu Rai along with brother of the informant was taken to the M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah. However, before he could be administered any medicine, the son of the informant died. After the death the brother of the informant along with other co- accused Chunnu Rai took the deceased in an ambulance and went to his village. It is further alleged that the petitioners as well as said Chunnu - 2 - Rai gave certain allurements to the informant for the land and money to which the informant did not agree. Thereafter the petitioners and other accused persons threatened the informant and by force cremated the son of the informant. However, the police came and recorded his statement. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although there is allegation of assault by these two petitioners of thrashing and forcibly cremating the son of the informant, but he was not taken to the hospital by these petitioners where the son of the informant died. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State on going through the case diary submits that in the hospital the Doctor had prescribed some medicines, but before any medicine could be given to him, the son of the informant died and the doctor suspected that the deceased was poisoned. However, since the dead body was taken away by the relatives of the deceased, the post-mortem of the dead body could not be conducted although in the F.I.R. the informant has alleged that the dead body was taken by the accused Chunnu Rai. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations against these petitioners and the materials in the case diary as submitted by the APP, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. The application is, accordingly, rejected. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)