IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25697 of 2008 VIJAY SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03/ 09.09.2008 Heard. The prayer for bail is on behalf of the petitioner Vijay Singh, not on the merits of the case because that appears not touched upon by the learned Jude dismissing his prayer. The learned Judge has touched upon some factors of the case leading to the present petition before this court. The petitioner is in custody in Sessions Trial No. 1018 of 2005 pending before Additional Sessions Judge I, Barh and the case is under Section 364 of the IPC and there was some material against the petitioner that the petitioner was one of the abductors/kidnappers of the child in respect of which Marachi P.S. Case No. 41 of 2001 was instituted. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, which was received by the office of the learned Sessions Judge on 7.7.2005, but the petitioner was released from custody by virtue of a release order, which was subsequently found fake. An enquiry, as it appears from the order as also from the submission, is going on. There is no result till date coming - 2 - out of that enquiry. The petitioner’s illegal release from custody could keep the case pending for about three years as the petitioner could be arrested and remanded in this case only on 18.3.2008 and the charges could be framed on that day. Thus, the petitioner could not plead that he is languishing in jail for no reasons. The reasons could very well be traceable to the petitioner himself for getting himself released on a fake release order. While contending, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not be held responsible for his illegal release on a fake release order and the petitioner’s custody could not be prolonged for that reason. I believe that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands specially to the lower court, because if the release was without any order in his favour from any court directly or on the basis of any application for bail, it was expected of the petitioner to have informed the authorities about the fake release order as there was no such order in that behalf. The petitioner could be held responsible for his connivance in his illegal release. - 3 - Considering the material in the case diary as also considering the conduct of the petitioner, I am not inclined to direct to release of the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J)