IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53717 of 2007 VIJAY KUMAR SINGH @ VIJAY SINGH @ BHOLA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 25.07.2008 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, State and informant. Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dehri (Indrapuri) P.S. Case No. 222 of 2007 registered for the offence alleged to have been committed under section 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on perusal of the first information report, it would appear that the allegation of assaulting the deceased with Bhala is against three persons including the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the allegations are vague, as a matter of fact; petitioner had got his operation for removal of appendices done in the Primary Health Centre, Thanapur, Chandauli, as would be appearing from the prescription of the Hospital as contained in Annexure-2 (series). It is further submitted that on perusal of the prescriptions of the post treatment given to the petitioner after his operation on 23rd of August, 2007, it would appear that petitioner for his post treatment was in the said Health Centre till 30th of August, 2007, as such, his 2 involvement in the alleged crime is totally ruled out. It is further contended that in terms of the order dated 08.05.2008 passed in this case whereby petitioner was directed to produce the certificate issued by P.M.C.H certifying that petitioner had undergone appendices operation, and if possible, also give the approximate date of operation, petitioner filed supplementary affidavit bringing on record the certificate issued by P.M.C.H., as contained in Annexure-8 (series) to the effect that his operation was conducted for removal of appendices, however, approximate date of operation could not be ascertained. It is further contended that on perusal of the prescriptions contained in Annexure-2 (series) read with the explanation submitted by the Doctor, who conducted the operation, as contained in Annexure- 1(A) to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the informant it would appear that operation was held on 23rd August, 2007, as such, the presence of petitioner was not possible on 26th of August, 2007, the alleged date of occurrence. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that on perusal of the allegations levelled in the first information report as well as the materials brought during investigation as also the supervision of senior police official, it would appear that specific statement of the informant is against other accused persons who gave Bhala blow in the stomach of the 3 deceased, on account of which the intestine came out, and therefore, the petitioner may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned counsels for the State and the informant submits that on perusal of the certificate issued by P.M.C.H. (Annexure-8) it would appear that although the Doctor found that petitioner’s operation was done for removal of appendices, however, it was not possible for the doctor to give the date of such operation. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that on perusal of Annexure- 1(A) to the counter affidavit, it would appear that doctor, who conducted the operation on 23rd of august, 2007 did not find the petitioner on 27th of August, 2007 in the Hospital while he was giving round. It was informed to the doctor by the Pharmacist that petitioner was taken away by his relative, who is also a Pharmacist, and further post operational care would be taken by him. As such, the petitioner left the hospital on 25th of August, 2007. It is further submitted that on perusal of the report of the doctor dated 22nd February, 2008 it would appear that endorsement to the effect that petitioner was discharged on 30th of august, 2007 under his signature is not correct and the same is not in his hand-writing. It is further contended by the learned Addl P.P. that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of participating in the 4 assault having Bhala in his hand and the same is further supported by the informant and other witnesses during investigation that petitioner was present and after the deceased Santosh fell down on account of assault made by other accused persons the petitioner and Ravindra assaulted him with ‘Bhala’ and ‘Chhura’ which resulted in his death. Considering the submissions, as noticed above, and on perusal of the allegations levelled in the first information report as also the materials brought during investigation, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is, accordingly, rejected. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)