IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32422 of 2009 Sanjay Singh, Son of Khantar Singh, Resident of Village Khoparia Tola (Lawolagam), Police Station Chausa, District Madhepura. ------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar --------- Opp. Party ----------- 3 7.11.2009 Heard Mr. Kanhaya Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused for an offence under Section 364, 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code and stands named in the First Information Report wherein the informant has alleged that it was the petitioner and a group of eleven named persons who had done her husband to death. The informant, however, was very clear in not claiming to be an eye witness and had stated that such information as with regard to her husband being done to death was given to her by Wakil Nishad and Bishundeo Nishad, who were not only the owner of the Jalkar where the deceased was employed or working but were well known to the petitioner as has been found in course of investigation. Mr. Singh, however, would point out that 2 these two persons, namely, Wakil Nishad and Bishundeo Nishad in their statement before the police did not support the fact to have seen the occurrence and therefore, the entire allegation made in the First Information Report becomes baseless. He had further gone to the extent to submit that as a matter of fact, it is a case of no evidence. Learned counsel for the State, however, would point out to the statement of one Dukha Das in paragraph no.26 of the Case Diary where Bishundeo Nishad is said to have also informed him about the occurrence. That apart, counsel for the State has also relied on the statement in paragraph no.41 of the Case Diary where the police had interrogated Wakil Nishad and Bishundeo Nishad once again by confronting them to the statement of the informant as also Dukha Das and this time, both the persons had straightforward surrendered by saying that they would not risk their life by stating anything against the accused persons named in the First Information Report because they were veteran criminals. Counsel for the State had also tried to substantiate this aspect of the 3 matter by demonstrating from paragraph no. 38 of the Case Diary that almost all the accused persons had criminal antecedent and in this context, this Court would find that the kingpin and the leader of the gang Sambhu Singh had as many as twelve pending cases against him and even other accused persons including the petitioner had similar criminal antecedent. It has to be noted that the petitioner has not stated even a word in the bail application about his criminal antecedent and when now confronted with the criminal history, learned counsel for the petitioner had tried to explain that the petitioner has two cases of minor offences, namely, one for an offence under Section 399/402 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)A 26/35 of the Arms Act and the other also though under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act but has no direct concern with the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, suppression of fact of the criminal antecedent, the entire group of the persons 4 named in the First Information Report to have criminal antecedent and the statement of Dukha Das and the informant that their source of information with regard to the occurrence in question were the two witnesses, namely, Wakil Nishad and Bishundeo Nishad and statement of these two persons subsequently to the extent that they did not want to risk their life by naming the petitioner or other, are such cogent and interlinked circumstances which would make this Court to conclude that the petitioner is not entitled for being released on bail for the present. In recording such opinion, this Court is also guided by the fact that the petitioner was a named accused in this case of the year 2007 by way of a complaint leading to the institution of a police case on 29.1.2008 and had remained absconding till his arrest by the police on 17.4.2009. For the reasons indicated above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Sanjay Singh is hereby rejected. 5 However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after completing one year of judicial custody. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)