IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.4607 of 2010 AMIT KUMAR son of Sh. Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4/ 05.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as informant. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 31.07.2009, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12544 of 2009 with an observation that to renew his prayer for bail after six months. The informant is the brother of deceased Deepak Kumar. He stated that his brother was Area Sales Manager in Reliance Telecom, Patna. He left his house on 28.11.2008 at 8:30 A.M. He did not return that day. The informant in course of enquiry learnt that his brother in the evening at about 6:10 P.M. had gone to meet one Bharat Bhushan and then he went to meet one Ajeetabh Arvind, an office staff. It is further stated that he went to Alpana market to attend the opening ceremony of wine shop of one Amit Kumar at alpana Market. At about 9:05 P.M. Deepak had a talk with his wife Rekha Singh. He has further stated that it has come in the investigation that the deceased remained with Amit till 10:00 P.M. along with Rajeev Ranjan @ Chhotan Singh and Ganga Sagar Ojha @ Tinku. The case of the petitioner is that he has been sought to be implicated on the confessional statement of co-accused Amit Kumar, a salesman of Sky Land Shop and Ambika Prasad, who runs mess in the hotel of institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even as - 2 - per the statement of Ajit Kumar recorded in paragraph 26 of the case diary, it could be said that petitioner along with Deepak Kumar and Tinku took wine around 9:30 P.M. It is further submitted that even according to the statement of Ajit Kumar, the victim Deepak Kumar went out on his own vehicle. Learned counsel submits that the police coerced to make statement that he along with Deepak Kumar had gone to Patliputra Hotel, which was booked in the name of Ganga Jha. Counsel for the informant has filed counter affidavit wherein it has been stated in paragraph-7 that the bill of Patliputra Hotel was to be paid by this petitioner. In this context, he refers to paragraph nos. 70 and 74 of the case diary. He further submits that in paragraph 38 of the case diary, the petitioner stated that he had not met the deceased in the last one week or so whereas it would appear from the prosecution case that even on the date of occurrence he had met the deceased. Counsel for the petitioner submits that case diary would show that the bill was paid by one Pradeep Kumar. Learned counsel submits that it has been merely stated in paragraph 71 of the case diary that the bill would be paid by this petitioner. He submits that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that this Court after hearing the parties in detail has rejected the bail application of the petitioner with liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months. Counsel for informant has expressed apprehensions that petitioner would not co-operate in trial. Learned counsel for the - 3 - informant states that though various Scientific Tests were ordered by the learned Magistrate, still the same has not been conducted by the investigating officer. He submits that in case petitioner is granted bail, he may escape and would not turn up for this case. Having heard the counsel for the parties and having regard to the observations made by this Court earlier, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. In the circumstances, petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Phulwarisharif P.S. case no. 498 of 2008 with the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors would be his own family members and the other would be a public servant. (ii) The petitioner will not physically absent for two consecutive dates till four witnesses are examined in trial. (iii) The petitioner would make himself available, as and when required, during investigation or trial. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)