IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4993 of 2010 RANBIR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.5744 of 2010 DINA NATH SINGH, RAJPATI SHARMA & GANESH RABIDAS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 13.5.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. Ranbir Singh is the sole petitioner in Cr.Misc.No.4993 of 2010 and Dina Nath Singh, Rajpati Sharma and Ganesh Rabidas are petitioners in Cr.Misc.No.5744 of 2010. The informant Akhlesh Kumar Pandey is brother of deceased Mukesh Kumar Pandey @ Guddu Pandey, who made his fardbeyan at 10 A.M. on 27.7.2008, near the place of occurrence. He stated that in the morning of 27.7.2008, he got information at Bhagalpur from his other brother Sanjay Kumar Pandey that Mukesh Kumar Pandey @ Guddu Pandey has been killed. On receipt of such information, the informant came to village Anadipur within Kahalgaon P.S., where he found the dead body of his brother lying near a Nala east of the Railway track. He learnt that on 26.7.2008 at about 9.30 P.M. the deceased brother rang up his other brother Sanjay Kumar Pandey and stated that he is at the Mukhiya’s place. The informant suspected that some unknown persons have killed his brother. The petitioner Ranbir Singh is the husband of the Mukhiya. - 2 - The petitioners Dina Nath Singh, Rajpati Sharma and Ganesh Rabidas are said to be his associates. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire prosecution case seems suspicious. He submits that admittedly though the deceased Mukesh Kumar Pandey @ Guddu Pandey did not return home in the night, still no effort was made to search him out. Further more, the other brother Sanjay Kumar Pandey found the dead body near the Railway track in early morning, but still he did not lodged any F.I.R. The F.I.R. has been lodged after preparation of inquest report at 9 A.M. on 27.7.2008. The petitioners are being implicated belatedly on basis of 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Hari Bol Jha made on 14.5.2009 in course of trial. He further submits that earlier Hari Bol Jha in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has not named the petitioners as accused. Further. the tape of mobile conversation of Hori Bol Jha was brought on record during the trial which also do not implicate the petitioners. Thus, counsel submits that the statement of Hari Bol Jha cannot be relied upon, as earlier he had not stated the involvement of any of the petitioners. Counsel for the informant submits that there was some monetary dispute between Ranbir Singh and the deceased. He submits that Hari Bol Jha in his statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that at the behest of Ranbir Singh all the accused persons including the petitioners in Cr.Misc.No.5744 of 2010 assaulted the deceased with fists and slaps. Further more, on the order of Ranbir Singh, six persons dragged the deceased towards the community hall - 3 - where two unknown persons held the deceased. Thereafter there was gun shot firing. Then the accused persons are alleged to have dragged the deceased towards the Railway track. It is true that in the earlier statement to the police Hari Bol Jha does not name the petitioners as accused. Even the tape conversations of Hari Bol Jha do not make any allegation against these petitioners. Nonetheless he subsequently in his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. during trial has named the petitioners as accused. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Ranbir Singh. His prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners Dina Nath Singh, Rajpati Sharma and Ganesh Rabidas in Cr.Misc.No.5744 of 2010 submits that they have no animus of their own with the deceased and no allegation has been attributed against them by Hari Bol Jha in his statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. that they have killed the deceased. At the most, they would come only under the purview of sections 323 and 201 of the Penal Code. The grounds raised by the petitioners may be a relevant ground for grant of regular bail. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners namely Dina Nath Singh, Rajpati Sharma and Ganesh Rabidas in Cr.Misc.No.5744 of 2010 as well. Their prayer for anticipatory bail too is rejected. - 4 - KHAN However, if they surrender and pray for regular bail, the same would be considered on its own merits and also taking into consideration that the main allegation is attributed against accused Ranbir Singh. (S.P.Singh,J)