IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37982 of 2009 Ashok Sahi, S/o Pravesh Singh, Resident of Mohalla Ganga Vihar Colony, Tekari Road, P.S. Sultanganj, District Patna. ----- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar --------- Opp. Party ----------- 3 11.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner is facing prosecution for an offence under Section 346, 347, 323, 325, 328, 379, 420, 468 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner was earlier facing prosecution launched by the informant and his family members relating to an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of the sister of the informant and when the said case was found to be true and its trial was pending, the petitioner and his other associates are said threatened the informant and other family members for which another case being Budha Colony P.S. Case No. 236 of 2008 was filed. It is however alleged that despite institution of the aforementioned second case, the petitioner and his other associates on 3.8.2009 had again made an 2 attempt first to kidnap the informant and thereafter also subjected him to physical torture and assault for obtaining his signature on a blank page and had further threatened him that if the case filed by the informant as with regard to killing of his sister was not settled outside the court, he and his family members will be put to further torture. In fact, the informant claimed that he could rescue himself only by putting signature on a blank paper, whereafter, he was released by the petitioner and his gang at an unknown place from where he could ultimately reach his home before lodging the present case. Such allegation against the petitioner and other accused persons named in the First Information Report is sought to be questioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner by taking a plea that when the petitioner was already granted anticipatory bail by this Court in the first case, there was no occasion for him to give threat or put any pressure or coercion on the informant of this case specially when the informant of this case was 3 not the informant of the earlier case relating to killing of his sister. He would further explain this aspect of the matter by taking a plea that if the petitioner and his associates had any such intention, they could have kidnapped the father of the informant who was the informant of the earlier case. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that in term of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case lodged at Budha Colony police station will not be maintainable, inasmuch as, the petitioner was abducted and taken to Hazipur and, therefore, it is only the Hazipur police station which will have jurisdiction to institute the case. All the aforementioned submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are only to be noted for its being rejected. First of all, the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner has got nothing to do with the alleged tampering of the evidence. The petitioner does not deny that there has been another case filed against him and his family members and others being Budha Colony P.S. Case No. 236 of 2008 and, in fact, when that 4 case also did not deter the petitioner and others in pressurizing the informant and his other family members, they are said to have made another attempt on the informant by again committing the same type of offence as alleged in the F.I.R. of this case. Thus the allegation of tampering of evidence by intimidating and/or threatening cannot be brushed aside merely due to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The next submission of the counsel of the petitioner that it was the father of the informant who should have been abducted and kidnapped in place of informant as the earlier case was instituted by the father of the informant also cannot be accepted inasmuch as the petitioner also is an important family member who infact was looking after and doing Pairvee in the case of murder his sister. Merely because the informant was not the earlier informant of the case relating to murder of his sister will not mean that the informant became a rank outsider having no concern with the affairs of his family. Finally the issue of territorial 5 jurisdiction as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without substance inasmuch as the petitioner has clearly stated of the part of the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of Budha Colony Police Station, when he was released by the petitioner. Grant of bail by this Court, whether anticipatory or regular is always subject to the condition that the petitioner and others will not abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. Thus when there is a clear allegation of tampering of the evidence, which has been also found to be correct in course of investigation of this case by the police as is recorded by the court below on perusal of the Case Diary being paragraph nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 & 21 the petitioner’s prayer for bail cannot be allowed. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error of record by also holding that in paragraph no.10, the concerned witnesses had also supported the occurrence, in the opinion of this Court will not make any material 6 difference because three other witnesses have already supported the occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. in paragraph nos. 7, 8 & 9 of the Case Diary. The injury report also is in line with the allegation made by the informant which categorically supports the version of the informant of being subjected to burning by the butts of lighted cigarettes. The overemphasis of learned counsel for the petitioner on the doctor’s opinion that such injury could also be caused by pouring of hot water on himself also does not inspire any confidence in the light of the fact that earlier also a case was already filed against the petitioner with similar allegation of tampering of the evidence. Thus the institution of the present case, as with regard to the fresh episode, seems to be only an outcome of what was faced and experienced by the informant. That being so, this Court would reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner with a direction to the court below that the trial of the main case being Hajipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 357 of 2007 is taken up on day-to-day 7 basis so that the same is concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the trial court would find any difficulty in concluding the said case within a period of six months, it will submit its report to this Court disclosing reasons for not concluding the trial within the aforementioned period of six months. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)