IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2499 of 2010 PRAMOD KUMAR PANDEY, son of Kameshwar Pandey, resident of Mohalla- Court Bazar, Ward No. 15, P. S. Sitamarhi, Town & District- Sitamarhi at present residing at Mohalla- Patel Nagar, P.S. Patliputra, District- Patna… Petitioner. . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . with Cr.Misc. No.2706 of 2010 PANKAJ KUMAR, son of Sri Ram Narayan Choudhary, resident of village- Dumari, P.S. Raghopur, District- Supaul…. Petitioner. . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 2. 26.02.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the State as also counsel for the informant. The petitioners facing prosecution for offence under Sections 302, 120B/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code have their cut out defence for grant of anticipatory bail that even if the entire allegation in the first information report is accepted, the petitioners being either Store Keeper or Hostel Superintendent of the School can not in any way held to be responsible for the death of the son of the informant. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, Pramod Kumar Pandey has submitted that from the FIR it would also be clear that the name of the petitioner has only been introduced 2 because he had recommended the victim boy to be admitted in the school. Mr. Giri also submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and in fact the police has investigated the matter and has found that it was on account of an unnatural offence committed by Devashish Benarji that the aforesaid unfortunate incident had taken place. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, Pankaj Kumar the Hostel Superintendent of the School, while supplementing the submissions of Mr. Giri has also raised an additional plea that the time of occurrence as found by the police is around 8-9 A.M. when the music classes for the students of boarding school was being conducted and it is at that point of time the boy was picked up by Devashish Benarjee for an inhuman behaviour for personal lust leading to this unfortunate incident resulting into his death. He would therefore submit that the petitioner, Pankaj Kumar being hostel superintendent can also not be held to be responsible in any manner for the unfortunate occurrence and infact the police has also not found any involvement of the petitioner. 3 Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has seriously opposed grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioners by taking a plea that it is a shocking crime in which if the petitioner Pramod Kumar Pandey being his own relative of the informant had given a false information to him that his son was seriously ill in place of his being already dead, it must be presumed that he was actually trying to suppress the real version for safeguarding the interest of his colleagues in the school. Opposing the anticipatory bail of Pankaj Kumar, counsel for the informant has proceeded to make a submission that since the son of the informant was a student of a boarding school, the petitioner in capacity of hostel superintendent was primarily responsible for safety of the boy therefore he would not deserve grant of anticipatory bail. Having given anxious consideration to the aforementioned submissions, this Court is of the opinion that so far petitioner Pramod Kumar Pandey is concerned, he is only a store keeper of the school. It was not a sin on the part of the petitioner Pramod Kumar Pandey to suggest the informant for taking admission of his son in the school. 4 He again cannot be faulted if he had given a news of illness of son of the informant to the informant because any such heart breaking news is normally not conveyed directly by any prudent person so as to make the person receiving such devastating news nervous and/or senseless or desperate. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any merit in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel of the informant so as to disentitle the petitioner, Pramod Kumar Pandey from the privilege of anticipatory bail. Coming to the facts of the petitioner Pankaj Kumar, this Court would find that true it is he was hostel superintendent but then the morning hours in between 8 to 9 a.m. when the boy was picked up by Devashish Benarjee, another teacher of the school during music classes for inhuman behaviour for committing unnatural offence, the petitioner hostel superintendent was not expected to act as a body guard of each and every student residing in the hostel of the boarding school and to that extent, this Court would find that there is also nothing serious against the Pankaj Kumar, hostel superintendent. Considering the aforesaid aspects as also when 5 this Court would find that when the co-accused Nitin Kumar, the Director of the School, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2009 in Cr. Misc. No. 34239 of 2009 and the case of the petitioners do not stand on any different footing, this Court in order to maintain consistency would hold that these two petitioners also are entitled for the privilege of anticipatory bail. That being so, petitioners namely Pramod Kumar Pandey and Pankaj Kumar, in the event they would surrender within a period of four weeks from today, are directed to be released on 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, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Bidupur P. S. Case No. 239 of 2009, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)