IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4753 of 2010 DEVASHISH BANARJEE, son of late Deonath Banarjee, C/o Mahesh Singh, House No. 212A, Late No.7, Baluibasa, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand), at present Music Teacher, Oasis Residential Public School, Panapur, Dharampur, P.S. Bidupur, District Vaishali (Bihar) Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 4.8.2010 Heard Mr. Basant Kumar Chaudhary, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the informant as also the State. The prayer for bail of the petitioner in this case is sought on the ground that earlier this Court while dealing anticipatory bail petition of two co-accused in Cr.Misc.No. 2499/2010 and 2706/2010 had committed an error of record in holding the petitioner to be prima facie responsible for death of the deceased in a suspicious circumstance. Today Mr. Chaudhary has taken this Court to the various paragraphs of the case diary as also the supervision note to contend that it will be preposterous to take only the recovery of blood stained cloth from the room of the petitioner to be the circumstance to connect him in the same 2 occurrence and to that extent he has pointed out that the observation made by this Court in the order to the following effect: “ … … … But then the morning hours in between 8 to 9 a.m. when the boy was picked up by Devashish Benarjee, another teacher of the school during music classes for inhuman behaviour for committing unnatural offence … … …” is apparently not correct. In the opinion of this Court in a case of present nature where the minor was subjected to unnatural offence before he being done to death, the consistent version of the witnesses recorded in the case diary in paragraphs 10, 11 and 14 that in the morning hours it was this petitioner who had left the class room on three occasion in the interval of half an hour coupled with the fact that the petitioner’s room on being searched by the police led to recovery of blood stained cloth would definitely not get explained by the version of the petitioner that it was he who had picked up the boy in injured condition. The recovery of boy in injured condition at about 1 p.m. and at that point of time when the petitioner is 3 said to have carried the boy to the hospital he was wearing a coloured tea-shirt and full paint whereas recovery which has been made from his room is that of a blood stained half paint, white tea-shirt, handkerchief, bucket all having blood marks. Therefore, this Court would not find any reason to hold that there was an error of record in the order. Coming to the merits of the case, this Court would find that the said minor boy was attending music classes with others and had been taken out on the ground of having bournvita drink and the petitioner the music teacher was found to have left the music classes atleast three to four times in short interval. Thus when the blood stained knife blood stained clothes of the petitioner which he was wearing in the morning classes along with his bucket also having blood mark would constitute sufficient connecting circumstance for the involvement of the petitioner in the murder of a minor boy after being subjected to unnatural offence. the previous similar antecedent of the petitioner in other school 4 was also recovered by the police and the entire body of the minor boy was found to have six sharp cutting injuries apart from the whitish semen inn his anus containing spermatozoa it would not be illogical to infer that the victim minor boy was made first subjected to inhuman torture of unnatural offence and was then mercilessly done to death by some one and in this context recovery of being involved in similar unnatural offence with a student also would raise an accusing finger against him. Thus the petitioner appears to be the main culprit for the present. Having held so this Court must make it clear that whatever has been observed above is by way of a tentative finding, which has also had to be recorded because of the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel but then it is made clear that they would not in any way influence the trial court at the time of hearing of this case against this petitioner and/or other co- accused. In view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last one year this Court would direct the trial court 5 to see that the trial of this case is expedited and concluded preferably within a period of one year from today. With the aforesaid observations and directions this application for bail is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/