IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43811 of 2009 SURESH SINGH, SON OF SUKHDEO SINGH,RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANPURA, P.S. VAISHALI, DISTRICT VAISHALI. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 23.2.2010. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is in jail in Vaishali (Belsor O.P.) P.S. Case No.183 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 395, 397 of the Indian Penal code, subsequently Section 396 of I.P.C. was added after the death of husband of the informant. In the case, as per F.I.R., occurrence took place in the night of 26.7.2008. In course of committing dacoity, the accused persons also assaulted the husband of the informant and thereafter on the same day, a fardbeyan was recorded at 2.15 A.M. on 26.7.2008. In the same night i.e. on 26.7.2008 at about 2.15 A.M., fardbeyan of the informant was recorded and F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. It appears that during course of investigation, the name of petitioner surfaced on the basis of - 2 - statement of some of the witnesses who disclosed that this petitioner and his brother, who are co-villagers of the informant, were identified through their voice and as such the petitioner was subsequently arrested. After lodging of the F.I.R., in course of treatment, the husband of informant died and, accordingly, Section 396 of I.P.C. was added in the case. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in course of investigation, it has come that one of the witnesses has uttered that prior to the date of occurrence, there was some altercation in between family of the informant and these accused persons. Accordingly, he submits that due to ill will, the petitioner was made accused in this case. Otherwise, even in the F.I.R., the petitioner would have been made an accused by the informant, but F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. He further submits that though it was a case of informant that articles were looted during dacoity but nothing has been recovered from the possession of this - 3 - petitioner and on these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes a prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and he submits that it is a case under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner has been identified through his voice and as such it is not desirable to extend the privilege of grant of bail to this petitioner. Without going into the merit of the case particularly in view of the fact that petitioner is co-villager and he was not named in the F.I.R., I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail is allowed. Let the petitioner above named be released on bail on his furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur in Vaishali (Belsor O.P.) P.S. Case No.183 of 2008 with a condition that on each and every date, the petitioner shall remain present before the - 4 - N.H./ court, failing which his bail bond shall automatically be cancelled provided that in special exigency the petitioner can make a prayer before the court for prior permission for his none appearance on a particular date and the court below will examine such prayer on its own merit. With above observation and direction, the bail petition is allowed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)