IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12740 of 2008 SHAMBHU YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 01.07.2008 The petitioner, Shambhu Yadav, apprehends his arrest in connection with Atari P.S. Case No. 72 of 2005 registered under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act and has prayed for anticipatory bail. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned A.P.P. for the State. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person yet due to local politics his name has been dragged in on the basis of the false statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of one Anwar Khan who after a long period of 7 months from the date of occurrence came forward to claim to be an eye witness of the occurrence without assigning any reason for such delay. In this connection it has been submitted that prior to statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. this very Anwar Khan gave statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he neither claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence nor had named the petitioner and as such veracity of the evidence of this witness was doubtful more so when during these 7 months he had not mentioned about the occurrence or the accused to any one including his own family members as also the police. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that Shahnawaz Khan, son of the deceased, who also gave his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. has not said anything - 2 - against the petitioner, and rightly so, as he was at the relevant time in Orissa. He also sought to point out that there was absolutely no evidence against the petitioner and it was only the family members of the deceased who had fabricated evidence against him and deposed to that effect to implicate the petitioner. Merely because the witnesses who have named the petitioner as one of the accused happen to be the family members of the deceased the same does not in any way take away the veracity of their evidence which will be tested at the time of trial. For the present the materials in the case diary as also the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. show the complicity of the petitioner in the aforesaid incident. In view of the circumstances I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)