IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32653 of 2009 GOPALI SAH, son of late Musaharu Sah, resident of village Sripar Sukhashan, P.S. Kishanpur, District Supaul Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 15.9.2009 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Counsel for the petitioner with regard to the offence in question u/s 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code would submit that there is no material to implicate the petitioner nor there is any circumstantial evidence to establish the link of the petitioner with the alleged murder of Raj Kumari Devi. He has further submitted that in course of investigation materials have been found against the other accused persons who had some motive to kill Raj Kumari Devi and they were also threatening her in past. He has finally submitted that whatever materials have been collected in the case diary are only in favour of the petitioner and that the complicity of the petitioner at best at this stage while seeking bail would not be judged on the angle of the trial which alone can hold the petitioner to be 2 guilty. In the opinion of this Court the aforementioned submissions would be contrary to the materials on record as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge who refers to various circumstances emanating from paragraphs 24, 29, 42, 43, 78 and 79 of the case diary and its seal of approval to the findings recorded by the investigating agency in paragraph 78 of the case diary where it has been recorded in the statement of a witness that Gopali Sah i.e. this petitioner and Brahmdeo Sah co-accused were talking with each other by saying that they have to finish Raj Kumari Devi. This Court had in fact also the occasion of perusing the statement made in paragraph 78 from the case diary in possession of the counsel for the petitioner and on its bare perusal it becomes clear that the petitioner had a dubious past of having an illicit relationship with Raj Kumari Devi the deceased, which was being objected by the family members of the petitioner including his son and when the deceased Raj Kumari Devi became over 3 ambitious by also claiming land of the petitioner and his family members, the petitioners and his family members had got rid of her by killing her. That being so, it cannot be said that there is no material in the case diary as against the petitioner. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is, therefore, rejected. The trial court is however directed to expedite the trial. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/