IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42316 of 2010 SATENDRA SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 17.3.2011 Heard both the sides. The case is under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and the petitioner is named in the F. I.R. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the whole allegation emanates from the circumstances which raise some sort of suspicion that it could be the present petitioner and the other co-accused who could have murdered the deceased. The motive has been alleged in the F.I.R. also and that has been expanded in the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation. The wife and other family members of the deceased pointed out that the deceased had executed a power of attorney in favour of accused Dhananjay Singh who sold the land covered by that document and did not pay the sale proceeds to the deceased and in order to avoid the payment, he and the present petitioner had conspired to kill the deceased. Another circumstance which appears brought on record was the written note said to be recovered from under the bed where the deceased used to slip. It was written in that note that the deceased had been asked to come to accused Dhananjay Sigh and the deceased apprehended that he might be killed. The court below treating it as a dying declaration has rejected the prayer for bail. The submission is that there might be some motive 2 but as regards the circumstance which was read in the unsigned note of the deceased there could be many questions which have to be answered prior to the document being accepted as a material under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. One of the questions which has been pointed out to this Court was that it did not bear any signature and it was in the Photostat form which was presented before the Investigating Officer. There was no proof or substantial material indicating that it could be in the writing of the deceased except claimed by his family members. The other contention was that mere suspicion could not be a proof of relevant material so as to justifying refusal of the prayer. Regard being had to the facts of the case and the submissions, let the petitioner Satendra Singh be directed to be released from custody on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/-( ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar, in Buxar Muffassil P.S.Case No. 145 of 2010. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)