IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11590 of 2009 NABALIKI SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03. 28.07.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, informant and State. Sole petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Penal Code. F.I.R. is lodged against unknown. Informant has alleged that on the date of occurrence his nine years old son named Prince had gone to school but did not return home. A ‘sanha’ was lodged in connection therewith. On 28.11.2008, a dead body was found deserted in the nearby field which was subsequently found to be the dead body of the son of the informant. Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons. In course of investigation, the name of the petitioner has surfaced. It appears that the spy gave information that on the alleged date and time of occurrence the petitioner along with others were seen near the place from where the dead body was recovered. The informant, his wife and one of their relatives, namely, Surya Nath Singh, in their respecting statements recorded in paragraph nos. 25, 26 and 27, have stated about the possible complicity of the petitioner in the crime. Paragraph no.34 of the case diary indicates that when the sniffer dog was employed it took the route of the ‘aahar’ from where the dead 2 body was recovered. Paragraph no.54 of the case diary is the confessional statement of co-accused Ram Awadhesh Singh (one of the relatives of the petitioner) in which he named the petitioner as one of the associates in the commission of the crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that going by the materials on record a chain is not completed as nobody had actually seen the occurrence or stated that the petitioner was one amongst the group of person, initially kidnapped the boy and subsequently killed and threw the dead body in the ‘Aahar’. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is aged about 60 years and it is not expected of him to commit such crime in such a heinous manner. It is further highlighted that the petitioner is in custody since 05.12.2008. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the contrary, opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that apart from the materials that have come on record there is strong motive on the part of the accused persons who belong to one family. He submits that this had occurred because the informant was ploughing a piece of land for which he had paid certain amount to the owner. Subsequently, the petitioner and his family members paid some money to the same owner and were trying to take possession of the land. Having considered the submissions and after going through the record, this court, for the present, is not inclined to 3 extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected. However, considering the period of incarceration and the fact that he is about 60 years of age, this court grants liberty to the petitioner to renew prayer for bail if the trial of the case is not taken up and charges are framed within 09 months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order in the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that there is/are compelling circumstance that may justify his release on bail provisionally. Petitioner is granted liberty to make such prayer in the court below itself. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)