IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.38964 of 2010 RANBIR SINGH, Son of Kuldip Singh @ Kuldip Narain Singh Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4/ 05.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as informant. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was twice rejected by this Court by order dated 13.05.2010 and 23.09.2010. The informant Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, brother of the deceased Mukesh Kumar Pandey @ Guddu Pandey, gave his fardbeyan on 27.07.2008 at about 10.00 A.M. near Railway Track where the dead body of his brother was lying. The informant in his fardbeyan stated that in the morning of 27.07.2008, he got information at Bhagalpur from his other brother Sanjay Kumar Pandey that Mukesh Kumar Pandey has been killed. On hearing such information, the informant came to his native village Anadipur under Kahalgaon police station and found the dead body of his brother lying near Nala, near Railway Track. The informant further stated that the previous evening on 26.07.2008 at about 9.30 P.M., the deceased brother namely Sanjay Kumar Pandey informed that he is at the place of Mukhia (wife of petitioner Ranbir Singh). The informant suspected that some unknown persons have killed his brother. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main material came against the petitioner is a statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of Hari Bol Jha on 14.05.2009 during trial. Copy of 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Haribol Jha has been annexed as Annexure-7 to this application. In the aforesaid 164 Cr.P.C. statement Haribol Jha stated that evening of 26.07.2008, 7-8 persons were present at the house of the petitioner including the deceased. It was further stated that the quarrel took place between the petitioner and Guudu Pandey, who tried to flee. Thereafter 5-6 persons present in the room caught hold of Guddu Pandey. Thereafter Ranbir Singh took him to the back of community hall. Soon thereafter he heard two shots. Thereafter Ranbir Singh returned with rifle. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid Haribol Jha in his previous two statements before the police had not made any allegation against the petitioner, rather he stated that Sanjay Kumar Pandey died due to train accident, to which he is an eye-witness. He further drew the attention of the Court to the taped conversation of Haribol Jha recorded on 29.07.2008, two days after the occurrence. In the aforesaid statements again no allegations have been made against the petitioner, rather Haribol Jha stated that he died on account of train accident. He further submits that Hari Bol Jha filed a petition before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, that there has been pressure upon him to change his version to falsely implicate the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State and the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. They submit that twice anticipatory 3 bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court. They further submit that on account of his influence, petitioner got interpolation in the First Information Report, wherein it has been stated that informant does not have suspicion against any one. They further submit that Haribol Jha in his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has made allegations against the petitioner. This Court on the previous occasions rejected the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner after calling for the case diary. It appears that in the earlier statements Haribol Jha has not named the petitioner, as an accused. However, subsequently on 14.05.2009, he names the petitioner as accused. Furthermore, there was monetary dispute between the petitioner and deceased. The occurrence began at the house of petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to differ with my earlier view.. However, if petitioner surrenders before the court below and pray for regular bail, the same would be disposed on its own merit without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)