IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5604 of 2011 LAXMI NARAYAN MEHTA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.5834 of 2011 ARBIND YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 05. 13.05.2011 Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered under Sections 302, 120B of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. F.I.R. was lodged against unknown on 07.02.2007 when one Arun Kumar Golcha was killed. It appears that after eight days of the occurrence, on 15.02.2007 the victim’s driver Ramesh Goshwami’s 164 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded where Ramesh Goshwami admitted that first Devanand Jha and thereafter Dhirendra Yadav caused fire arm injury to the victim. The driver of the deceased also named Dipak Mandal and Laltu Yadav. Subsequently on 10.03.2007 the brother of the deceased raised suspicion only against the petitioner Laxmi Narayan Mehta. Subsequently Nikhil Prasad and Ganesh Jha were arrested in another case from Nepal when their 161 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded when they raised suspicion against the petitioner Laxmi Narayan Mehta. Subsequently in the present case their 161 2 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded on 25.05.2009 and 01.06.2009 where they admitted to have stayed in the house of named assailant Devanand Jha where petitioner Arbind Yadav brought eight lacs in two transactions. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that investigation is still pending against the petitioners whereas altogether six chargesheets have already been filed in the matter and except suspicion nothing has been raised against the petitioners as the witnesses only admitted that some MLA called at the telephone booth but neither the booth operator nor any witness suggested the name of the said MLA. It is submitted by Mr. Y. V. Giri and Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsels for the informant opposing the bail applications of the petitioners that Arbind Yadav is a notorious criminal and there are several cases pending against him. Moreover Ganesh Jha and Nikhil Prasad have admitted that the money was received through Arbind Yadav at Vaishali lodge. Moreover at the behest of Laxmi Narayan Mehta the investigation is not progressing because due to his political reach he is not allowing the police officer to proceed in the matter. 3 It is also submitted that paragraphs 176 and 177 of the case diary contain the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Nikhil Prasad and Ganesh Jha in which also suspicion has been raised against Laxmi Narayan Mehta and it is only after filing of the criminal writ application that the investigation started moving. Mr. Dashrat Mehta, learned counsel for the State submits that the case diary reflects seven cases against Arbind Yadav. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that out of seven cases petitioner Arbind Yadav has been acquitted in four cases whereas in one case the final form has been submitted and in another two cases he is on bail and all the cases are of 1984 to 1986. Considering the submissions of the parties, it is the admitted fact that petitioners were neither named in the F.I.R. nor any suspicion has been raised. The statement of Nikhil Prashad and Ganesh Jha only raise suspicion about petitioners’ involvement as it is submitted that due to political revelry the victim was eliminated at the hands of the petitioners. Investigation is still pending. Considering the fact that up till now only circumstantial evidences are available and the 4 investigation is still pending against the petitioners, let the petitioners namely 1. Laxmi Narayan Mehta 2. Arbind Yadav, event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in connection with Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 50 of 2007(G.R. No. 280 of 2007). The I.G., Purnea range is directed to entrust the investigation to some superior officer and complete the investigation within a period of two months and if it is found that both the petitioners are not cooperating in the investigation or anyway trying to tamper the evidence then the I.G., Purnea is authorize to file appropriate application for cancellation of bail of the petitioners without delay. Let the I.G. order for video graphy of any meeting of the petitioners with any police officer of Purnea range in connection of the present case or otherwise. The informant or the family members of the deceased are also at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail if petitioners try to tamper the evidence or try to delay the investigation or any police 5 officer violates the directions of this Court. Let the copy of the order be transmitted to I.G. Purnea for its circulation to entire police officers of the Purnea range for meticulous compliance of the order of this Court. Shageer ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)