IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18801 of 2011 1. Kamlesh Kumar Singh @ Kamlesh Singh son of Sri Sheo Balak Singh, resident of village-Paithanpur, police Station-Ara Mufassil, District-Bhojpur at Ara. 2. Dhrupnath Singh son of late Dinanath Singh, resident of village- Paiga, Post Office- Gundi, Police Station-Barhara, District-Bhojpur. …….Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar . …….Opposite party. ----------- 04. 03.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the State. These two petitioners had earlier filed an application for anticipatory bail which was disposed on 24.05.2011 by the following order:- Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, seeks permission to withdraw this application as the same has become infructuous. Permission is accorded. The application is dismissed as withdrawn. In order to maintain the second application seeking anticipatory bail, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by one Bimal Kumar Singh uncle of petitioner no. 1. Paragraph 2 and 3 of the said supplementary affidavit read as under:- 2. That it is humbly stated that the petitioners were taken/arrested on 23.05.2011 by the officer In- charge of Ara Muffasil Police Station from the village of petitioner no. 1 lying in Ara 2 Mufassil P.S. In this connection it is stated that the petitioner no. 2 was also present there, who has come to meet petitioner no. 1. Both the petitioners were detained at Ara(M) Police Station. Both the petitioners were released in the night of 24.05.2011. When the Officer In-charge became convinced that they are not accused/wanted in any case instituted at his police station. 3. That in the mean time Sri Nand Bihari Singh, who was uncle of petitioner no.1 informed the counsel for the petitioners in the morning that both the petitioners has been arrested. In that fact situation, this Court entertained the application on merit. Petitioners are accused in a case instituted under Section 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid case was lodged by the Chowkidar when two unknown/unidentified dead bodies were recovered near a bridge. In course of investigation, the statement of wife of petitioner no. 1 was recorded under Section 164 3 Cr.P.C. In her such statement (Annexure-3) she has give out the background leading to the occurrence. She has categorically alleged that these two petitioners along with others dragged the deceased(s) from the Samiyana and subsequently assaulted. Following day the dead bodies were found. Learned counsel appearing in support of the application submits that aforesaid lady (wife of petitioner no. 1) subsequently filed an application (Annxure-4), in the Court stating therein that her statements to that effect was obtained by the police under coercion/duress. In my view, the aforesaid document can be considered as an attempt to tamper with the evidence. Regard being had to the allegation and the materials collected in support thereof including facts reflected from the impugned order, this court is satisfied that petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail. Prayer is accordingly refused. The court below shall forward a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police Bhojpur at Ara for information and needful action, if any. Devendra (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)