IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1235 of 2008 SITA RAM RAUT @ SITAMA RAUT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 31.03.2009 This application has been filed with a prayer for directing the respondents’ police officials for arresting the respondent nos. 6 to 11 who are stated to be accused in Ekama P.S. Case No.94 of 2008 under Section 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said F.I.R. no.94 of 2008 was registered against unknown criminals on the statement of informant Shiv Sagar Rai who had found a dead body lying in a filed in the village and there were several incised wounds on the body which indicated that the deceased had been killed by dagger blows. Subsequently, the petitioner Sita Ram Raut who happens to be the father of the deceased, Ramji Raut, filed a complaint No.3545 of 2008 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra making respondent no. 6 to 11 as accused. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant had several litigations with them. It was further alleged that the deceased had gone to his sister’s Sasural for bringing some money from there and while returning to his house on a bicycle with money, the deceased was killed in the way at the hands of the respondent nos. 6 to 11. Nobody was named as an eye-witness to the occurrence. It was simply stated in the complaint petition that while the deceased was going from his house to his sister’s Sasural, accused Prabhu Nath Rai (respondent no.11) was seen going behind the deceased and on this ground it was suspected that the respondent no.11 might have disclosed to the other accused about the deceased have gone to his sister’s Sasural and that on this information, the other accused persons intercepted the deceased in - 2 - the way and killed him. Thus, there was no direct material but simple suspicion on the basis of which the accused persons, namely, respondent nos. 6 to 11 were suspected to have committed the offence due to the reason that there was litigation with them and they had earlier given threats to the complainant. The petitioner has annexed Annexure-6 and 7, i.e. the supervision notes of the Police Inspector and Superintendent of Police which mentions the statement of deceased’s wife, sister, father, brother and two other witnesses. But none of the witnesses was an eye-witness to the occurrence and they all have expressed suspicion about the hands of the petitioner in the commission of the offence due to enmity between the parties. The petitioner seeks a direction for arrest of the accused persons by the police investigating agency. Mr. Sunil Kumar Ravi, A.C. to G.P.-15 submits that the police officials are making investigation and proper steps will be taken in future. It is submitted that at present there is nothing substantial against the respondent nos. 6 to 11 for passing any direction as sought for, by the petitioner’s counsel. In such view of the matter, I find that no relief can be granted at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-