IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10536 of 2010 DIWAKAR PRASAD SINGH S/O PRAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE NAGDIH P.S. BARBIGHA, DISTRICT SHEKHPURA AT PRESENT MOHALLA KATRAPUR P.S. SHEKHPURA DISTRICT SHEKHPURA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- /3/ 02.12.2010 Heard Sri Y. C. Verma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Sri Raj Nandan Prasad learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Nawada (Town) P.S. Case No. 302 of 2009, for the offence under Section 364 (A) of the Indian Penal Code which was subsequently added by Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail. While pressing the bail petition, Sri Y.C. Verma, learned senior counsel has argued that except confessional statement of one Ranjan Kumar, there is nothing on record to implicate the petitioner in the present case. Learned senior counsel has also submitted that one of the co- accused namely Kedar Mahto, from whose custody, mobile of deceased was recovered, has been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8716 of 2010 on 20.05.2010. On the aforesaid ground, it has been prayed that petitioner may be granted bail. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the basis of case diary, submits that there are materials on record to suggest complicity of the petitioner. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out that on earlier occasion also that petitioner had prayed for grant of bail, which was disposed of on 26.02.2010 vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5804 of 2010 with a direction to the learned Court below to assign reason while considering the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, it was pointed out that after the case was remitted back, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Nawada has passed a detailed order. Sri Rajnandan Prasad has also submitted that keeping in view the seriousness of the allegation, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties I have also perused the case diary. It is a serious case in which the son and informant was firstly kidnapped and immediately thereafter he was killed and thereafter his dead body was wrapped in a plastic bag and concealed in a lonely place. After killing the victim boy the accused persons started to demand ransom of Rs. 500,000/- from the father of the deceased and succeeded to get Rs. 1,50,000/- It has further been noticed during the investigation that the mobile phone of this petitioner was being used by the nephew of the petitioner. The telephone print out has been collected during investigation by the investigating officer, which has been referred to in paras 23, 28 and 42 of the case diary. In para 79 of the case diary, accused Ranjan Kumar, has categorically stated that crime was committed with the consent and knowledge of the petitioner. Keeping in view seriousness of the allegation and material on record, the Court is of the opinion that petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail. So far as grant of bail of co- accused Kedar Mahto is concerned, the case of Kedar Mahto stands entirely on different footing. So far as confessional statement before the police is concerned, it is true that it has got hardly any evidentiary value but keeping in view the fact that the statement i.e. confessional statement of Ranjan Kumar has been corroborated by the other evidence i.e. printed out, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail. Accordingly the petition for bail stands rejected. Safik ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)