IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8705 of 2010 SANJAY RAY Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.11639 of 2010 BRAHMDEO RAVIDAS Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.12832 of 2010 BALAK YADAV @ RAMBALAK YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 08.04.2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case u/s 302,307,324,326,353,379,120B,121A of the I.P.C., 27 of the Arms Act, section 17 f the Cr. Law. Amendment Act and ¾ of the Explosive Substance Act. The prosecution case in short is that on 9.2.2009 at 11.45 am St Ravidas Jayanti was being celebrated in village Mahulia Tad. As a lot of people from the neighbouring district of Jamui as well as from the State of Jharkhand were to participate, a large number of police personnel were present for controlling law and order. It would appear that some of the petitioners had also requested the police personnel to be present on the occasion. In course of celebration, all of a sudden there was explosion and firing. The informant alleged that 100-150 Maoist variously armed were firing at the police personnel. In course of firing two police officials including officer in charge of Kawakol Police Station and ten constables were murdered. Besides this, 7 police personnel sustained fire arm injuries. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner Sanjay Ray submits that he is not named in the FIR and is sought to be implicated in this case on confessional statement of co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner Brahmedo Ravidas submits that though he has not been named in the FIR, yet he has been sought to be implicated in this case on the basis of confession of co-accused Sahdeo Rai, the local Chaukidar who stated in para 56 of the case diary that petitioner is a literate and clever person and he is leader of Ravidas society. Learned counsel for the petitioner Balak yadav @ Ram Balak yadav submits that he is a Government school teacher and not named in the FIR. He has been sought to be implicated in this case on confession of co-accused which would be evident from perusal of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one of the named accused and some unnamed accused have been allowed regular bail by a Bench of this Court. This application is disposed of with direction to the petitioners as above to surrender and seek regular bail which would be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)