IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43082 of 2009 VIJAY KRISHNA SON OF LATE SABUJ SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 7.1.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State and the informant. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. After hearing the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner, the State and the informant, it transpires that the petitioner is not named in the first information report and subsequently during investigation it was revealed that the petitioner and the deceased were close associates and it was the deceased, who used to handle the petitioner’s financial transactions. This had irked the son of the petitioner to the extent that there were repeated goadings that the deceased try to pacify the son of the present petitioner i.e. Chanakya to bring him around. On the fateful day the petitioner and the deceased are said to have gone to Jhula Apartment, which happens to be the residence of the son of the present petitioner i.e. Chankaya. Witnesses have stated that on the said day while there were talks going on between the deceased and others, the son of the petitioner, namely, Chanakya got agitated and whipped out a pistol and shot the deceased, due to which he died. Thereafter there is material that to screen the offence the petitioner made all kinds of attempts, but the - 2 - submission is that at best it would be a case u/s.201 I.P.C. against the petitioner, which is bailable in nature. The counsel for the informant has submitted that there is another additional material against the petitioner furnished by one Rajiv Kumar Singh that he had over heard the petitioner telling his son that the matter should be finished or done over with, but the Counsel for the petitioner explains that this Rajiv Kumar Singh had appeared as a seizure witness on 3.6.2009 but had not given any such statement and this belated statement given on 15.11.2009 i.e. after about five months evidently is only for the purpose of implicating the petitioner, against whom till then there was no cogent material collected by the Investigating Agency. Taking into consideration the aforementioned submissions as also the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 21.8.2009 and has clean antecedents, let the petitioner above named 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in S.K. Puri P.S.case No.110 of 2009 (G.R.No.2465 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 genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner, (ii) that the affidavit shall clearly state that the petitioner is not an accused in any other case and if he is he shall not be released on bail, (iii) that the bailor shall also state on affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is - 3 - 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 of bail, (iv) 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, (v) that the petitioner will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled and (vi) if any complaint is made against the petitioner about tampering with the evidence, the court below will hold an inquiry into the matter and proceed in manner prescribed. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )