IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37132 of 2009 MD. SHAHABUDDIN SON OF SRI S.M. HASIBULLAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PRATAPPUR, P.S. HUSSAINGANJ, DISTRICT SIWAN. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 7. 5.3.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner files rejoinder to the counter affidavit. Let it be kept on record. Heard Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Dayal, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is in custody in Siwan Mufassil P.S. Case No.131 of 2004 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 380, 335, 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per F.I.R., the case is that two sons of the informant were kidnapped on 16.8.2004. In the F.I.R., two persons were named as accused and F.I.R. was also lodged against unknown accused persons. While pressing the bail petition, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that in this case earlier thrice charge sheets were submitted, but the petitioner was not made accused in the case. - 2 - He submitted that first of all name of this petitioner transpired in statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of Chandeshwar Prasad, who is husband of the informant and unfortunate father of two sons. Learned counsel submitted that though name of this petitioner transpired in the statement of Chandeshwar Prasad, which was recorded on 7.4.2005, the police did not take any step for getting the petitioner remanded in the present case and it was argued that only on the basis of pressure by the administration, the petitioner has been made accused and remanded in this case. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was in judicial custody from 13.8.2003 to 24.2.2005 and thereafter, from 7.11.2005, he is continuing in custody. He further submits that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner was inside jail and as such there is no question for collecting any material showing involvement of this petitioner in the present case. In this case, by order dated 26.11.2009, case diary was called for and while calling for case diary, antecedent - 3 - report of this petitioner was also called, which has been received and kept at flag ‘B’ of the case record. Learned Senior Counsel argued that though the petitioner is accused in number of cases and it is also true that he has been convicted in altogether six cases, he has been granted bail in all other cases except two cases, one which is before this Court and another i.e. Hussainganj P.S. Case No.42 of 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Hussainganj P.S. Case No.42 of 2005, the petitioner was refused bail from this Court and thereafter, he approached Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court also did not entertain his bail petition. In the present case, there is materials on record indicating the involvement of the petitioner. In this case, two sons of informant were kidnapped and till date neither the boys were recovered nor even dead body of two sons have been recovered. Besides this, on perusal of antecedent report, which is kept at flag ‘B’, it is evident that petitioner was made accused in altogether 65 (sixty five) cases for - 4 - N.H./ commission of serious offences. Besides this, it is also not in dispute that petitioner has already been convicted in six cases. Of course, he has been granted bail in such cases. Without going into the merit of the case, particularly in view of the fact that two sons of informant were kidnapped coupled with the criminal antecedence of this petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner. Prayer for bail is rejected. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)