IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19896 of 2009 BARUN KUMAR @ BANTI @ GORA @ BARUN KUMAR SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.17506 of 2009 PAWAN SINGH @ JAI PRAKASH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- Cr.Misc. No.16118 of 2009 ANIL SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 17. 08. 2009. All the bail applications arise out of the same occurrence and same Police Station Case Number. Hence they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioners are accused in a case registered under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in short is that the deceased was sitting along with Barun, Pawan and Guddu. The next morning his dead body was discovered on the road side. It is alleged that in the statement made by co- accused Sakaldeo before the Police that the petitioner Barun is responsible for assaulting the deceased whereas accused Pawan was responsible for catching hold of the deceased. On 2 the basis of the confessional statement, the house was searched and blood stains were found in the house of accused Barun, whereas washed blood stained clothes were recovered in the house of petitioner Pawan. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no direct allegation against the petitioners. It is further submitted that as far as petitioner Pawan is concerned, even in the confessional statement the allegation is confined to catching hold of the deceased. Apart from which it is submitted that two accused persons, namely, Sakaldeo Singh, Guddu Singh, have been granted bail by a Bench of this Court. In a case of this nature where confessional statements have been recorded which resulted in recovery of the weapon utilised for carrying the murder, recovery of blood stained clothes, and blood stains from the place of occurrence, it can not be said to be a case where the chain of circumstantial evidence is weak and therefore, my conscious does not allow me to grant bail to the petitioners, although, my brother Judge has granted bail to co-accused Sakaldeo Singh and Guddu Singh. As far as Anil Singh is concerned, he is father of accused Barun and there is no circumstantial evidence against him except that, though, he knew of the occurrence and he did 3 not take any step to disclose the fact before the Police. Considering all aspects of the matter, bail applications of petitioners Barun Kumar and Pawan Singh is rejected. This Court may consider the bail application of Pawan Kumar at later stage. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner ,namely, Anil Singh is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 175 of 2008. SKBOSE (Sheema Ali Khan)