IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36646 of 2009 RANJAN YADAV @ MARSALIA, son of Sri Devani Singh @ Devani Yadav, Resident of village – Mohammadpur, P.S. Fatuha, District – Patna …… Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …….. Opposite Party ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. Uma Shankar Pd. Singh, A.P.P. For the informant : Mr. Ramesh Prasad Singh, Advocate -------------- 6 23.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has not been named in the first information report and after much delay statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded implicating the petitioner and others. It is also stated that the statement of alleged eye witness, namely, Md. Subhan was recorded after a lapse of about 6 months. In that view of the matter it is stated that the petitioner deserves bail. Learned counsel appearing for the informant 2 submitted that the informant had made a protest against the Investigating Officer and raised grievance before the Human Rights Commission or other authorities as on the very next date of the first information report he came to know about the real fact regarding petitioner’s involvement but the police was not co-operating and was not recording the statement of the informant. Thereafter, on his protest Investigating Officer was changed on 9.11.2007 and subsequently the statement of eye witness had been recorded by the police. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that prayer of bail of one co-accused, namely, Bhola Yadav has been refused by order dated 29.10.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 24850 of 2009. Petitioner’s case is on similar footing. Learned counsel for the State also submitted the fact that in 164 Cr.P.C. statement as well as the statement of eye witness as aforesaid, name of the petitioner along with Bhola Yadav has come. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and gravity of nature of allegation against this 3 petitioner and in view of the material collected during the course of investigation including the statement of eye witness and also the statement of the informant recorded under Sections 164 Cr.P.C., I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner. As a result this application is dismissed. However, petitioner, if so advise, shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within one year from today. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)