IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.26137 of 2008 SUKHDEO MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 22.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties and the State. The case is under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant Genddhari Prasad, the father of the deceased alleged in the fardbeyan that on 25.09.2007, he received telephonic message that his daughter and Nati had been killed by the petitioner and other four FIR named accused, who are the husband, mother-in- law and Dewar of the deceased. The petitioner is the cousin Sasur (father-in-law) of the deceased. The informant further alleged that his daughter was raising objections to the expenses made by the accused persons in the family and due to this grudge they killed informant’s daughter and Nati. The informant also stated that when he reached the house of the petitioner he found his daughter and Nati lying dead on cot and the dead body was burnt. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the cousin father-in-law and he is living separate from the deceased’s Sasural family. It is also submitted that the informant and others have simply expressed suspicion over the petitioner alleging his complicity in the offence but there is no direct evidence against the petitioner that he was involved in the killing. Learned APP referred to para 31 and 33 of the case diary and pointed out from the post-mortem report that there was 100% - 2 - burn injury on the dead body and they also referred to the statement of witnesses in paragraph 6, 7, 10 and 11 of the case diary, wherein witnesses have said that they had learnt from villagers that the deceaseds had been killed at the hands of the petitioner and others. Learned counsel replies that all these witnesses are hearsay witnesses and they have subsequently come to the P.O and they have learnt from others. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that there is no other witness to have seen the petitioner committing the murder. Mr. S.R. Haque learned APP appearing on behalf of the State does not point out any other material against the petitioner. The petitioner is said to be in custody since 2.10.2007. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, Sukhdeo Mahto is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with S.Tr. No. 171/2008 arising out of Giriak P.S. Case No. 143 of 2007. Kundan (C. M. Prasad, J.)