IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15123 of 2008 DILIP KUMAR MAHTO @ UDAY KUMAR MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 10.9.2008 Heard. I have perused the case diary myself with the assistance of the learned A.P.P. Learned counsel for the informant has also appeared and has filed a show cause annexing thereto a copy of the visera report. The petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 6.8.2007 pasased in Miscellaneous petition no.20203 of 2007. It appears that the police after investigation submitted the final report, as mistake of fact, not sending up the petitioner. In the meantime, the child aged about five years was examined under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and she stated in her statement that the petitioner forcibly administered poison to the deceased and thus she died of poisoning. Thereafter, the cancellation petition was filed vide Miscellaneous petition no.46915 of 2007 and notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner did not appear and the Court found the notice properly served and without hearing the petitioner on account of his non-appearance went on to cancel the bond of the petitioner by cancelling the order passed in the above noted Miscellaneous petition no.20203 of 2007. The petitioner, thus, is in custody. The allegation of the informant, who happens to be the brother of the deceased, is that his sister was poisoned to death. - 2 - There is no reason assigned as to why the lady was poisoned to death who was mother of a child who is probably the witness to the occurrence and whose statement was recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There were two types of allegations- the informant went to allege that the petitioner was demanding a motor-cycle and not getting that earlier on 15.7.2002 threw a burning lantern on her person and as a result of which she was burnt but saved. But he threatened her to kill and lastly she was killed. The contention is that in fact the police could not find out any reason as to why the lady was murdered and it was quite uncertain about the manner of the occurrence. Some of the witnesses examined in the case diary have stated that the lady was a patient of Tuberculosis and became ill and was rushed to the hospital where she was treated. It was further stated by the witnesses that the present petitioner was not present in his house and was informed telephonically and came back and thereafter the informant was also given telephonic information about the condition of his sister being precarious. They have stated in many paragraphs of the case diary that the lady died due to diarrhoea. That part of the story of death as indicated by the witnesses is absolutely false inasmuch as the viscera report, which is annexed to the show cause filed by the opposite party no.2 indicates that Aluminium Phosphide which is marketed as “ Celphos ” was found in the viscera of the lady and the death was caused due to - 3 - poison. I do not want to express any opinion about the competence of the child being a witness to the occurrence but after having gone through the case diary I was also not sure that the petitioner is really coming out with some part of truth. The lady was in his house and she appeared dying in suspicious circumstances. The circumstances were such as if it could be a case under section 304 B of the Penal Code as the lady enjoyed only five years of her marriage. There could be many reasons either for granting or refusing bail but the circumstances could not permit this Court to exercise its discretionary power of granting bail to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )