IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.2479 of 2010 UMESH PRASAD SINGH, son of Late Rajendra Singh Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Upendra Kumar Singh, Advocate & Shivendra Kr. Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S. C. Mishra, APP For the informant : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate. ------------- 4/ 10.05.2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under sections 364, 302, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The petitioner is not named in the First Information Report which has been instituted against unknown persons for kidnapping of the informant’s brother. Subsequently, during investigation it transpired that the deceased was a confidante of one Vijay Krishan, M. P., and used to manage his financial transaction due to which he gained his trust and also amassed huge amount of property. The petitioner, who happened to be the Bodyguard of accused Vijay Krishan, provided by the government, on the date of occurrence had allegedly gone to the flat where the occurrence had taken place. Later on, when co-accused Chanakya i.e. son of Vijay Krishan was arrested, he gave a confessional statement before the police stating that it was the petitioner who used to constantly goad him against the deceased and for this reason he had also provided him - 2 - with a pistol with which he had shot dead the deceased. In the case diary, there is an entry corroborating that the petitioner had purchased the pistol with which the occurrence had been committed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the confessional statement of the co-accused there is no material against him and the petitioner is not legally bound by the contents of the same. His further submission is that co-accused similarly placed has been granted bail by this court by order dated 7.1.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 43082 of 2010. However, learned counsel for the State and the informant state that in fact after this order there have been certain developments in the case by way of confessional statement of the co-accused Chankya which shows the complicity of the present petitioner. 5. In view of the above and also the fact that the occurrence had taken place after due planning, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 6. Prayer for bail is rejected. 7. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial in view of the serious nature of the offence. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)