IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.19652 of 2009 ARVIND MAHTO, S/o Ram Vilas Mahto, R/o Vill. – Barhara, P.S. – Birpur, Distt. – Begusarai ….. Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …… Opp. Party. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mrs. Nutan Mishra, Advocate. For the State:- Mr. R.P.S. Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 6. 07.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioner is accused in a case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner himself had lodged the first information report, however, subsequently he had been made accused in this case and his self-incriminating confessional statement had been recorded forcibly by the police. It is further submitted that prior to the occurrence and lodgment of the first information report concerning this case, the deceased wife had never made any complaint against the petitioner, rather she had filed an informatory petition on 12.01.2007 itself before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2, stating therein that her brother and father had assaulted her 2 husband when her husband demanded the money which had been given by him on an earlier occasion and they had also threatened him with dire consequence. It is also submitted that the assailants were in search of the petitioner; however, it appears that by mistake they had fired at the wife of the petitioner. It is also submitted that due to the reason that the petitioner has named his brother-in-law in the first information report, on that pretext, at the instance of the in-laws, petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. In the supervision notes of the S.D.P.O., it has come that the son of the petitioner had seen the brother of the deceased as one of the assailants. However, the State has filed an affidavit clearly stating that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the boy has not named anyone. Further submission is that only on the basis of the fact that there has been some talk on Mobile No. 9973570808 prior to the occurrence with the petitioner, which belonged to one Onkar Mishra, the petitioner along with him has been made accused in this case. State has filed counter affidavit stating therein that the SIM of the said mobile stands in the name of one 3 Sampatia Devi, wife of Nagar Sah of Village Muslimpur and not in the name of said Onkar Mishra. It is also stated that a complaint case had been lodged by the father-in-law after lodgment of the present F.I.R. on 24.08.2008. With regard to the trial, it has been stated that the same is still pending for framing of charge and the next date fixed in the case is 08.12.2009. Petitioner is stated to be in jail custody since 11.07.2008. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the petitioner, Arvind Mahto to be released on bail on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 30 of 2008. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )