IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. MISC. NO. 17039 OF 2009 ***** Md. Kadir @ Md. Abdul Kadir, son of Sri Haroon, resident of village- Maubehat, P.S.- Manigacchi, District-Darbhanga. …. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar …. …. Opposite party ---------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, A.P.P. ---------- 5. 11.9.2009. Petitioner was a named accused in Pandaul (Sakri) P.S. Case No.414/08 for offences under sections 302, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. A written report was filed by one Md. Hassamul Haque @ Rahat alleging therein that on 31.12.2008 when he along with one Gunanand Choudhary after doing some work in the Darbhanga Civil Court were proceeding to their village at about 5.30 P.M. on a motorcycle, on the way near a petrol pump they saw the present petitioner with Manikant Jha and Md. Kari. When the informant and the deceased reached near the Sakri-Nawada Gumti it is alleged that all the three persons came and surrounded his motorcycle. The petitioner is alleged to have fired three rounds which hit Gunanand Choudhary. Thereafter the accused persons have fled. The informant, therefore, lodged the case in Sakari Police Station. The reason for the occurrence is stated to be a disputed going on between the petitioner, who is a Up-Mukhiya and one Shyamanand Jha with regard to a pond. Gunanand Choudhary, the deceased, used to look after the litigation and the case. Based on the F.I.R. the police investigated the matter and they filed a final form. So far as this - 2 - petitioner is concerned the police came to a considered opinion that it was the informant who had stage-managed the said crime and only to settle score with the petitioner he named him as the prime accused. It has further transpired that the wife of the deceased not being satisfied with the police investigation, alleged that since the petitioner was an influential local politician the final form came to be filed. She, therefore, was compelled to file a protest-cum-complaint case on 18.2.2009 which was registered as Complaint Case No.233/09. It is further stated that based on the evidence and examination of witnesses under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cognizance has been taken against this petitioner and eight other persons on 23.3.2009. Learned counsel representing the wife of the deceased, therefore, has appeared, opposed the prayer of bail and also filed a counter affidavit. Learned counsel representing the petitioner informs the Court that in the complaint case he has been granted bail by the High Court on 2.6.2009 in Cr. Misc. No.19110 of 2009. So far as the present case is concerned the police has filed a final form and, therefore, he should be given the benefit of bail even in the present case. Learned counsel representing the informant states that he does not want to go behind the reason for grant of bail in the complaint case but he does inform the Court that since the Court was not apprised of all the factual position at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioner was given the privilege of bail in the said case. The background under which the investigation has been made and it is also alleged that the police was - 3 - in hand in glove with the present petitioner and the filing of the final form does not mean that the petitioner is not involved in a serious crime of murder of her husband. From the submissions and the material on record there are certain grey areas on which light is still to be shed. It is also a fact that cognizance has been taken against the petitioner on the protest petition and prima facie allegation and evidence of his complicity is there. In view of the same the Court is not inclined to enlarge him on bail in the present case at this stage, but once the matter progresses and depending on how things unfold the matter may be reconsidered at a later stage. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)