IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.17894 of 2010 RAJU SINGH, Son of Dinanath Singh Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 7/ 22.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is an accused in a case under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code to which Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added subsequently. The informant Ramayan Singh stated that on 09.02.2010 at 9.00 P.M. his son Sunil Kumar, aged 26 years, received a call on his mobile and went out telling the informant that he will return within 10 minutes. Sunil Kumar Singh possessed two mobiles bearing no. 9771158359 and 9608239444. The informant learnt from villagers that while Sunil Kumar Singh went out, he met with Bhim Singh, Chandan Singh and Bhushan Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not named in the First Information Report. Further more, the petitioner is sought to be implicated on his own confession, wherein it is alleged that he has stated that he made call to the victim. He further submits that prosecution also seeks to implicate him in view of paragraph 105 of the case diary opining that on the statement of the petitioner, dead body of the deceased was recovered near from a ditch. Learned counsel submits that the Mobile in question does not belong to him rather it belongs to one Renu Devi with whom petitioner does not have any concern. He further submits that mere saying that the dead body was recovered on the statement of petitioner would not be sufficient material. The petitioner ought to 2 have been taken to the place from where the dead body was recovered. Learned counsel further submits that the confession of the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate belatedly after 4-5 days. He further submits that his implication would not appear from the fact that the inquest report does not show that as on whose confession; the dead body was recovered from the ditch. He further submits that there is no admissible circumstance in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner is in custody since 17.02.2010. Counsel for the informant and the State opposes the prayer for bail. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. His prayer for bail is rejected. However, he may renew his prayer for bail after two months. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)