IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.1016 of 2010 RAMOTAR YADAV, son of Late Hansraj Yadav Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 08.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under sections 302, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. In the First Information Report which is in the form of written statement, the son of the deceased has stated that in the last communication with the deceased they were informed that the deceased was sitting with the present petitioner and other co-accused persons. Thereafter, he learnt that the dead body of his father was lying on NH 31 and, so, he suspected the present petitioner and others of having conspired in the commission of murder of his father. On 30.4.2009 i.e. more than three months later Kaushlendra Kumar, brother of the deceased and Sita Ram Singh gave statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. wherein, Kaushlendra stated that he had seen the present petitioner throwing the dead body from a car, whereas, Sita Ram Singh stated that he had learnt about the same. However, these witnesses were earlier examined under section 161 Cr. P.C. entered in paragraph 23 and 312 of the case diary on 16.1.2009 and 16.3.2009 respectively. The said Kaushlendra Kumar had not stated the fact that he had seen the petitioner throwing the dead body in his earlier statement, whereas, Sita Ram Singh had given his statement as a hearsay witness which evidently is belated having been given after two months of the occurrence. In the meanwhile, Rahul, nephew of the - 2 - deceased has given a statement about the motive for the commission of this occurrence attributable to the present petitioner. It has been stated that in paragraph 45 and 46 of the case diary witnesses have stated that in fact, the deceased had died on account of an accident and the post mortem examination report also supports this fact since the death is said to have been caused due to crushing with heavy object. Under the circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, who is in custody since 16.3.2009 and against whom there is no eye witness account, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada, in connection with Rajauli P.S. case no.10 of 2009, subject to the conditions (i) that one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner, who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner,(ii) that the bailor shall also state on affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is implicated in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse, (iii) that the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if he fails to do so on two given dates and delays the trial in any manner, his bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse and (iv) that the petitioner will be well represented on each date and if - 3 - he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)