IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18033 of 2009 Chandan Kumar, Son of Sri Nand Kishore Vishwakarma @ Nand Kishore Mistri, Resident of Village Nawada, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District Patna. ------------ Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ------ Opp. Party with Cr.Misc. No.18374 of 2009 Harendra Kumar, Son of Gobardhan Prasad, Resident of Village Lala Bhadsara, P.S. Dulhin Bazar, District Patna. -------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ------ Opp. Party with Cr.Misc. No.30545 of 2009 Ramdeep Yadav, Son of Sadhu Yadav, Resident of Village Bhagyoga, P.S. Paliganj, District Patna. --------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ------- Opp. Party with Cr.Misc. No.21045 of 2009 Indrajeet Kumar, Son of Late Jai Singh, Resident of Village Lala Bhatsara, P.S. Dulhin Bazar, District Patna. -------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar --------- Opp. Party ----------- 8 29.10.2009 Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Sashikant Singh, Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha and Mr. Jai Ram Prasad appearing for all the four petitioners in this case. The main allegation against the petitioners, to say the least, will shock the conscience of any person, inasmuch as, it is said that they were the mastermind and the executors who along with few others including one Udai had looted a sum of rupees five lacs 2 in broad day light which was being carried by the informant cashier of Allahabad Bank for its being used for making of bank draft in the main branch of Allahabad bank at Patna. The complicity of the petitioner, namely, Ramdeep Yadav surfaced initially on his own confession but then such confession was in two parts, namely, the whereabouts of the sum of rupees five lacs as also the persons who had played role in such occurrence. The master mind of the whole ploy was the petitioner, namely, Indrajeet Kumar who is said to have been along with the informant and the petitioner, namely, Harendra Kumar on the motorcycle which was made target by the petitioner, namely, Ramdeep Yadav and his accomplice one Uday. Uday is not before this Court. The detailed confessional statement led to recovery of certain amount from the house of the petitioner, namely, Ramdeep Yadav as also the story of sharing of booty by Indrajeet Kumar and Harendra Kumar apart from Uday. When these bail applications came for hearing before this Court, it was found that 3 even after recovery of the currency notes, no T.I. Parade was conducted and as such it had called for an explanation from investigating agency as to why no such T.I. parade was held and also to submit a report of the T.I. Parade to this Court whereafter the Senior Superintendent of Police had appeared in person and had placed the report of the T.I. Parade on record showing the identification of the looted currencies and his explanation was that since the recovered currencies from the house of the petitioner, namely, Ramdeep Yadav were also bearing the impression and seal of the Allahabad Bank as directed by the informant in the First Information Report and the bag containing such currency note with full description of its make colour as also stapled in the bottom as described in the F.I.R. by the informant, the police did not feel the further necessity to go also for the identification parade of the recovered bag and currency and such identification parade was only subsequently held wherein the informant had also identified the recovered currency and the bag. This Court would not like to make any 4 further comment on the aforesaid assumption/carelessness of the police but only record its strong dissent in the manner in which the police had left the strings open for the defence to take advantage of an otherwise full proof case by not conducting the T.I. parade of the recovered currencies and the bag of the informant. On the basis of the aforementioned materials gathered in course of investigation by the police, the question of granting bail to the petitioner, namely, Ramdeep Yadav would not arise inasmuch as he appears to be kingpin who had played both parts, namely, committing the occurrence in league with Indrajeet, Udai and Harendra as also distributing the booty and since a sizeable amount of looted currencies with the bag have been recovered at his instance which also stand identified by the informant in T.I. parade, the role played by the petitioner, namely, Ramdeep Yadav in the occurrence cannot be minimized only because of his confessional statement before the police. Next comes Indrajeet Kumar who also, to 5 say the least, would be equally responsible as he was one who had informed co-accused Ramdeep about the informant’s usual practice of carrying huge amount to the bank for preparation of bank draft as also giving schedule when he would drive the motorcycle along with the informant. Once this Court would find that the plan of the petitioner, namely, Ramdeep Yadav was wholly dependant on the blue print prepared under a conspiracy with the petitioner Indrajeet Kumar facilitating the timing and manner of occurrence which has been exposed and busted by the police from the recovery made at the instance of the petitioner, namely, Ramdeep Yadav, the implication of the petitioner, namely, Indrajeet Kumar also cannot be said to be false or incorrect. The submission of Mr. Sharma with regard to false implication of the petitioner Indrajeet on account of no recovery of the currencies from his conscious possession only the basis of arrest of co- accused Ramdeep and his confessional statement, is fit to be rejected inasmuch as a sum of Rs. 97,400/- of the looted amount has 6 also been recovered from the conscious possession of Indrajeet Kumar. The role of the petitioner, namely, Harendra Kumar of sharing Rs. 20,000/- only may go to show that he had a lesser say in the matter but then he was also accompanying the informant and Indrajeet on the motorcycle and therefore, whatever be the evidentiary value of such confessional statement, his role in the occurrence even to a lesser extent, at least for the purposes of bail, cannot be altogether disbelieved. Distinct to all the three persons, namely, the petitioners Ramdeep Yadav, Indrajeet Kumar and Harendra Kumar, there is also one person namely the petitioner Chandan Kumar about whom there is not a word of any role played by him in the confessional statement of the petitioner Ramdeep Yadav. In fact, there is no space for him in the actual occurrence because as per the story given by the informant no sixth person was present at the time of occurrence inasmuch as, three of them are on the motorcycle including the informant and two of them being Indrajeet and 7 Harendra and two of them Ramdeep and Udai are said to be the snatchers of the money. Therefore, it is Ramdeep, Indrajeet Kumar, Harendra Kumar and Uday who are the persons according to the confessional statement of Ramdeep who had played any role in the occurrence. Simply because the petitioner, namely, Chandan Kumar in his confessional statement had revealed of certain regarding his conversation on mobile phone of the job having been done by him will not be good enough for his being held guilty to the extent of the aforesaid four persons in absence of any recovery of the looted amount from his conscious possession or even an allegation in this regard of sharing the booty as revealed in the confessional statement of co-accused Ramdeep. This Court however would not like to make any further comments on the silent role played behind the screen by any other co- accused including petitioner Chandan Kumar as that may prejudice the trial but then in absence of any cogent material, Chandan Kumar would be entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, this Court would direct for 8 release of the petitioner, namely, Chandan Kumar on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.C.J.M., Danapur in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 379 of 2008 (G.R. No. 2593 of 2008), subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be either of the parents or his wife and that he shall punctually remain present in course of trial and his absence on two consecutive dates in such trial shall automatically lead to cancellation of his present bail. The role of the petitioner Harendra Kumar being of a lesser magnitude and he having also no criminal antecedent and being in custody since 19.1.2009, this Court would reject his prayer for bail for the present with a liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completing one and a half year of his judicial custody. This Court, however, is not at all inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, namely, Indrajeet Kumar and Ramdeep Yadav for the present whereas Indrajeet Kumar shall have 9 liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completing one more year of his judicial custody from today the petitioner Ramdeep Yadav can do so only after completing two more years of his judicial custody. As a matter of fact, since all the accused persons including Uday are already in custody and the charge-sheet have already been submitted, it would be in the interest of justice to get the trial itself concluded by taking it on out of turn basis. That being so, this Court would direct the trial court to ensure that the trial of the petitioners and other co-accused persons itself is concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and in the event such a trial would not be concluded in the aforementioned period, it would be open for the petitioners, namely, Indrajeet Kumar and Ramdeep Yadav to renew their prayer for bail initially before the trial court which would be under obligation to spell out the reasons for not concluding the trial with the aforementioned period of time and thereafter only, they can move this Court 10 with a prayer for bail. In the result the prayer for bail of all the petitioners except that of Chandan Kumar in the light of observations and directions is rejected for the present. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)