IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38736 of 2009 MANENDRA KUMAR @ MANENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY @ Manindra Kr. Choudhary, son of late Shiv Chandra Choudhary, resident of village Basantpur, P.S. Hasanpur, District Samastipur, presently residing in Ward No. 6, P.S. Rosera, District Samastipur Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.32830 of 2009 SANTOSH ANAND SINGH @ SANTOSH PD.SINGH @ SANTOSH KR.@ Amit Kumar, son of Sri Rajendra Singh, resident of village Kumbhi, P.S. Cheriya Bariyarpur, District Begusarai Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 9.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. Considering the nature of allegations for offence u/ss 302/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner Manendra Kumar (Cr.Misc.No. 38736/2009) on account of the fact that he is not only own nephew of the informant but the police also in course of investigation had found no clue and accordingly, had submitted a final form. It is true that the learned Magistrate has differed with the police report and taken cognizance against him but then for the purpose of bail this Court for the time being is satisfied that the petitioner at best may have some hand in 2 conspiracy as per the F.I.R. Be that as it may, the petitioner, Manendra Kumar @ Manendra Kumar Choudhary @ Manindra Kr. Choudhary, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera (Samastipur) in Rosera P.S.Case No. 173/2008, subject to the condition that one of his bailors must be either his parents or his wife. It goes without saying that he shall also remain present in course of trial without fail and his absence on two consecutive dates shall make him liable for cancellation of his bail. As with regard to the petitioner Santosh Anand Singh, while this Court would find that there would be evidence indirectly to connect him in the occurrence, inasmuch as the shooter was one Krishna Kumar Singh who was accompanied by another veteran criminal Bablu Singh and the third person as per the F.I.R. was one Saroj Kumar @ Swayambar Yadav. It has, however, come in 3 the case diary that this petitioner had contact with Bablu Singh and he remained in constant touch with the said Bablu Singh which has been explained in the case diary with the help of print out of the mobile phone of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that there is no truth in the allegation that the said mobile was used by the petitioner or mobile was even owned by him. Probably the petitioner could have succeeded in the aforesaid plea in getting bail had he no criminal antecedent. It has come on record that the petitioner is having four other criminal cases pending against him and therefore, the complicity of the petitioner at least in the conspiracy in which Bablu Singh was tipped off to shoot the young journalist deceased cannot be altogether ruled out. Considering this aspect of the matter, the prayer for bail of the petitioner Santosh Anand Singh @ Santosh Prasad Singh @ Santosh Kumar @ Amit Kumar is rejected for the present and since he is in custody from 15th January, 2009 the trial 4 court is directed to ensure that the trial of this sensational case is also taken up out of turn and the same is concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded in the aforementioned period for the laches solely attributable to the prosecution the petitioner will have the liberty to move the trial court for grant of bail and the court below will record reasons for not concluding the trial, only whereafter the petitioner may move this Court for grant of bail. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/