IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.7879 OF 2009 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, SON OF LATE YOGENDRA PRASAD SINHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ANTHAR, POLICE STATION MUSHAHARI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. PRESENTLY RAILWAYS EMPLOYEE, POSTED AT KATHGODAM, POLICE STATION KATHGODAM, DISTRICT NAINITAL UTTARANCHAL. VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR WITH CR.MISC. NO.7880 OF 2009 VED PRAKASH, SON OF SHRI DHARMVIR, RESIDENT OF UTTAMNAGAR, NEW DELHI VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ************ 3 08/06/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the informant and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners are accused in a case under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased had gone to attend the SHRADH ceremony of the wife of Sunil Kumar Sinha. It is alleged that Sunil Kumar Sinha had taken a loan from the deceased and when he went to attend the SHRADH, his body was recovered from the river and the doctor found that the deceased died due to strangulation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Ved Prakash submits that he is the brother of the wife of Sunil Kumar Sinha and he too had come to attend the 2 SHRADH ceremony. He had no direct connection with Sunil Kumar Sinha or his family members and it cannot be presumed that he is involved in the said occurrence. Considering this aspect, the petitioner Ved Prakash is directed to be released on bail in Mushari Police Station Case No. 107 of 2008 on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur with a condition that he will remain present before the Court below as and when required and his absence even for a single day without any cause may result into the cancellation of his bail bonds. As far as the petitioner Sunil Kumar Sinha is concerned, it appears that there is circumstantial evidence against this petitioner as the deceased had gone to attend the SHRADH ceremony of the wife of the petitioner and there would be no reason to presume that anyone else in the village would have been responsible for strangulating the deceased. An argument has been advanced on behalf of this petitioner that at the time of occurrence, water level in the river was very high and it may be 3 possible that the neck of the deceased got entangled with the ropes that were placed for catching fish in the river. However, that aspect of the matter cannot be considered at this stage as there is no material to presume such a fact. Accordingly, the prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioner Sunil Kumar Sinha is rejected. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )