IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.21338 of 2011 Leeladhar Jha @ Liladhar Jha Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 03/ 20.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner is in jail custody since 26.12.2010 in a case initially, registered under sections 364, 120B/34 of the IPC and subsequently, section 302 of the IPC was also added. Petitioner along with his two sons are named in the first information report on the ground that earlier Dumra P.S. Case no.5/2009 was registered in respect of murder of the informant’s son and in the aforesaid case, two sons of the petitioner were made accused and trial of the aforesaid case was going on but the petitioner and his sons were mounting pressure upon the informant as well as her husband to enter into in compromise and when the informant as well as her husband refused to oblige, the petitioner as well as his sons taking help of others kidnapped the informant’s husband. Subsequently, whose dead body was recovered in the district of Sheohar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner nor his sons were named in the first information report in Dumra P.S. Case no. 5/2009 and, as a matter of fact, the aforesaid case was initially, lodged against one Amresh Kumar against whom there was allegation that he defalcated money of the informant’s husband and when the informant’s husband demanded his money the aforesaid 2 Amresh Kumar kidnapped the informant’s son and committed his murder. It is further pointed out by him that in course of investigation of the aforesaid case some co-accused persons were arrested and allegedly, their confessional statements were taken and at the behest of the informant, the police implicated the sons of the petitioner in the aforesaid crime. It is further contended by him that admittedly, informant’s husband was a dumb person. So, there was no need to eliminate the informant’s husband. So far as the case diary of the present case is concerned, it is manifest from the entire case diary that none of the person had seen the petitioner in the company of the victim of the present case and it appears that after entire investigation, police has only collected this material that after institution of the Dumra P.S. Case no. 5/2009, some threatening calls were made on the mobile phone of the informant. Considering the aforesaid circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, let the petitioner, Leeladhar Jha @ Liladhar Jha, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Dumra P.S. Case no. 318/2010. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)