IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38474 of 2009 ABHISHEK KUMAR RAI @ CHINKU . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . with Cr.Misc. No.41582 of 2009 DEEPU RAI @ DEEPAK KUMAR RAI . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 3. 16.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties in both the cases. The petitioners in both the cases are accused in Bettiah Town P.S.Case No.166 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 387, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The names of these two petitioners had transpired during the course of investigation into the death of the two younger brothers, namely, Sanjay Kumar Shahi and Jitendra Kumar Shahi of the informant Abhay Kumar Shahi, who were shot dead while returning from their place of work in the heart of the town of Bettiah. The allegation as set out in the first information report is against one Alind Rai who with the aid of these petitioners and others has been alleged to have carried out the alleged crime of gunning down the brothers of the informant for the reasons that the said Alind Rai had demanded a sum of Rs.10 lacs from these 2 two brothers who are civil work contractors and on denial, he has given effect to the said crime by the aide of his henchmen. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant himself has named Alind Rai and one Pramod Kumar Pandey for the alleged crime. He submits that the name of these petitioners had transpired by reason of statements given by one Sanjiv Kumar Singh. Learned counsel for petitioner Abhishek Kumar Rai alias Chinku submits that merely by reason of the fact that he happens to be the younger brother of Alind Rai, he has been roped in the present case. He further submits that in the entire statement of allegation, the name of this petitioner has not been mentioned. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Dipu Rai submits that his case is also on similar footing and that he has not been named in the first information report and that his name has transpired by reason of the statement of one Sanjiv Singh and who has been granted bail by this Court vide order passed on 27.10.2009 in Cr.Misc.No.31263 of 2009. He further submits that the named accused Pramod Kumar Pandey has been granted bail by this court vide order passed on 26.10.2009 in 3 Cr.Misc.No.29684 of 2009 and other accused persons have also been granted bail named in para-10 of the bail petition filed on behalf of petitioner Abhishek Kumar Rai. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that a bare perusal of the statements made in paras-15, 16 and 65 of the case diary, in no uncertain terms proves the involvement of these petitioners in the present occurrence. He then submits that the statements of the witnesses shows that petitioner Abhishek Kumar Rai was sitting in a Safari car along with accused Alind Rai with AK 47 rifle. He relies on the statement made by one accused Chunnu Thakur in para 22 of the case diary in which he has discussed the manner in which the alleged killing had taken place and which was planned at the residence of Alind Rai. He further submits that petitioner Dipu Rai was present at the place of occurrence and so far as petitioner Abhishek Kumar Rai is concerned, he is an active member of the criminal set resulting in the killing of the two brothers of the informant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application in the light of the materials that have come during the course of investigation. 4 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let petitioners, Abhishek Kumar Rai alias Chinku and Deepu Rai alias Deepak Kumar Rai be released on bail upon furnishing individual bail bonds of Rs.10,000/ (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah in connection with Bettiah Town P.S.Case No.166 of 2009, subject to condition that the petitioners would be attending the court below on each and every date fixed and on failure on their part to attend the court on two consecutive dates without reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the court below would grant liberty to the court below to initiate proceedings for cancellation of their bail bonds and for taking them into custody. ahk (Jyoti Saran,J.)