IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.30451 of 2011 Dilip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Singh Versus The State Of Bihar with Criminal Miscellaneous No.41525 of 2011 Kundan Singh @ Kundan Kr. Singh Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 03/ 13.12.2011 Both the above stated petitions arise out of Hasanpur P.S. Case no. 139/2010 initially, registered under section 307/34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act but later on, sections 324, 302, 120B of the IPC were also added and, accordingly, both the above stated petitions are being disposed off by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel for the Informant. Petitioner are not named in the first information report and in course of investigation when the re-statement of the informant was recorded, he disclosed names of the petitioners and specifically stated that he had seen petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 30451/2011 and other accused fleeing on a motorcycle just after the alleged occurrence. Furthermore, when the statement of the father of deceased was recorded, he claimed himself to be eye witness of the alleged occurrence and stated that the petitioners and other accused rained bullets upon the deceased. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that according to the prosecution case itself, the alleged occurrence took place on 1.10.2010 whereas fardbeyan of the informant was recorded 2 on 7.10.2010 but the informant did not even whisper against the petitioners in his fardbeyan. It is further contended by him that had the petitioners been identified by the father of the deceased, he would have certainly disclosed names of the petitioners and other accused to his son who is informant of the present case. Learned counsel further refers paras 75 and 76 of the case diary and submits that just after the alleged occurrence deceased came at the house of one Nand Kishore in injured condition from where he telephoned his father who later on, came and took the deceased to hospital. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant refers paras 45, 47 and 48 of the case diary and submits that witnesses claimed to have identified the petitioners and other accused committing murder of the deceased. He also refers para 178 of the case diary and submits that the petitioners have several criminal antecedent. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, particularly, keeping in mind that names of the petitioners came in this case after 14 days of the alleged occurrence and furthermore, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 30451/2011 except the alleged conspiracy, let the petitioners, Dilip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Singh and Kundan Singh @ Kundan Kumar Singh, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera at Samastipur in Hasanpur P.S. Case no. 139/2010. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)