IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22206 of 2009 SITA MANJHI son of Sarjun Manjhi, resident of village- Koiri Bigha, police station- Belaganj and District- Gaya…. Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 06.11.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Though the petitioner was not named in the FIR for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 325, 379,353, 332, 333, 427, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms act, Section 3, 4, 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and section 17 of the CLA Act, his complicity had been found on the basis of the statement of one witness Rajesh Manjhi who in paragraph 32 who had named the petitioner as also two others namely Munarik Manjhi and Sanjay Manjhi. The FIR narrates the horrendous incident torching of the police party on patrol duty by the extremists in which six constables on duty sitting on the jeep were burnt to death. Such statement of Rajesh Manjhi, an eyewitness and a co- villager of the petitioner had also stood corroborated in the confessional statement of other co-accused Suchit Kumar and ultimately zeroed down in the supervision note of 2 Dy.S.P. leading to filing of chargesheet against him and nine other accused way back in January 2002. Counsel for the petitioner, however, is of the view that the said statement of Rajesh Manjhi would not inspire confidence and in fact computerized sheet attached by the office of this court in this bail application would go to show that a large number of co-accused have been released on bail on various dates between 3.4.2002 to 15.4.2008. In the opinion of this court, the case of the petitioner is absolutely distinguishable inasmuch as other accused persons who have been granted bail by this court were not named by at least witness Rajesh Manjhi who is an independent witness and co-villager of the petitioner. This court would find that the case of Munarik Manjhi, Sanjay Manjhi and Sita Manjhi who were seen at the time of occurrence by Rajesh Manjhi participating in the aforementioned horrendous incident would be quite distinguishable and none of them have been released on bail by this Court till date. Counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Though no such 3 statement has been given in the bail application the counsel has made only an oral statement on the basis of instruction received by him on telephone last night and therefore the same also cannot be treated to be authentic. The case is of the year 2001. The name of the petitioner surfaced in the year 2001 itself when Rajesh Manjhi a co-villager of the petitioner had given statement directly alleging his involvement in the gruesome incident and yet the petitioner remained absconding for over a period over seven years before surrendering on 5.12.2008 though chargesheet also was submitted against him in 2002 showing him absconder. In that view of the matter, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and his prayer for bail is hereby rejected with an observation/direction that if the case of the petitioner has been committed to the Court of Sessions, the trial of the petitioner be expedited and concluded preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)