IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42566 of 2010 ANNU SINGH @ ANAND RAJ S/O Sri Sushil Singh R/O Mohalla- Sheo Bazar, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, Distt.- Saran at Chapra. -----------Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR -------------Opposite party. with Cr.Misc. No.39545 of 2010 PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH @ MANU SINGH, Son of Birendra Nath Singh, resident of Village- Dhaturi Tola, Police Station- Dokati, District- Ballia (U.P.) ----------Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR -----------Opposite party. 3. 20.01.2011 Both the cases were heard together since both cases arise out of Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case No. 62 of 2010. The petitioners who are in custody in the aforesaid case which was registered under Sections 394, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, have prayed for grant of bail. In the present case while two constables were moving on a motorcycle firing was made from the back side and thereafter one of the constable sustain injury. The accused persons thereafter looted service revolver. The F.I.R. was lodged against two unknown accused persons. During investigation it appears that one of the accused namely, Raj Srivastava was arrested and on search from his house looted revolver was recovered. The petitioner 2 Annu Singh was made accused in this case since he was cousin brother of Raj Srivastava and the petitioner Annu Singh also made a confession before the police. So far as petitioner Pankaj Kumar Singh in Cr. Misc. No. 39545 of 2010 is concerned, he was remanded from another case in the present case and thereafter he has also made a confession. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Raghbendra Kumar, submits that during investigation the case against petitioner Pankaj Kumar was not found true and as such final report was submitted by the police on 24.7.2010 vide charge sheet no. 216 of 2010. Regarding Annu Singh petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 42566 of 2010. Shri Rana Pratap Singh learned senior advocate submits that for implicating the petitioner in the present case the police has found two reasons. The first reason was that the petitioner was relative of the main accused Raj Srivastava and secondly confession of the petitioner. According to Shri Rana Pratap Singh, it was exculpatory confession and he has not confessed that he participated in the crime, of course, he had admitted that he was told by the accused Raj Srivastava regarding the occurrence. Shrimati, Indu Bala Pandey learned 3 Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail. It was submitted that Pankaj Kumar Singh was having criminal antecedent and during investigation sufficient materials were collected, however, learned A.P.P. has not disputed the fact that in respect of Pankaj Kumar Singh final form was submitted. It was also submitted by Shri Rana Pratap Singh that only on suspicion petitioner Anu Singh was made accused. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that during investigation telephone printout was obtained which shows that this petitioner Annu Singh was in touch with accused Raj Srivastava. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that both the petitioners cannot be detained further in the present case. So far as telephone printout is concerned, since evidence has been brought on record that the accused Raj Srivastava was relative of the petitioner, talking with the petitioner on telephone cannot be a cogent reason for implicating the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners namely, Annu Singh @ Anand Raj and Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Manu Singh 4 be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in connection with Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case No. 62 of 2010. Anand Kr. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)