IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38530 of 2009 CHUNU THAKUR S/O MURSHING THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHAVIRPUR P.S. YOGAPATTI, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.1780 of 2010 ALIND RAI @ ALINDRA RAI, SON OF ASHOK KUMAR RAI, RESIDENT OF STATION CHAUK, BETTIAH, POLICE STATION BETTIAH TOWN, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.3210 of 2010 RAJ KUMAR RAI @ RAM BILASH RAI SON OF LATE BINDHYACHAL RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SISWANIA, POLICE STATION CHANPATIA,DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 1.2.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. Cr. Misc.No.38530 of 2009 filed on behalf of Chunu Thakur, Cr. Misc. No.3210 of 2010 on behalf of Raj Kumar Rai @ Ram Bilash Rai and Cr. Misc. No.1780 of 2010 on behalf of Alind Rai @ Alindra Rai under sections 302, 387, 120B I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act are being taken up together, because these cases have arisen from one occurrence. Two persons Sanjay Shahi and Jitendra Shahi were shot dead and the F.I.R. was registered - 2 - against petitioner Alind Rai and Pramod Kumar Pandey in which it was alleged that Alind Rai was demanding ranson of Rs.10,00,000.00 two months back and this matter was reported to the police. It was suspected that he was instrumental to kill the deceased for demand of ransom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in course of investigation, it was suspected that killing was by five persons namely, Nikhil, Raj Kumar, Amit, K.P. and Navnit Tiwary and out of these five alleged assailants, two namely Amit and Nikhil have already been admitted to bail by this Court. The case of the petitioners Chunu Thakur and Raj Kumar Rai is similar to the case of those persons who have been admitted to bail. On behalf of Alind Rai, it has been stated that the F.I.R. mentions about one informantion to S.D.O. but that information has been reproduced in paragraph-56 of the case diary whereby there is no mention that the petitioner Alind Rai has demanded ransom. At best the allegation against him is of conspiracy. The order dated 6.1.2010 granting bail to Amit and Nikhil has been annexed as Annexure-4 in Cr. Misc. No.3210 of 2010. - 3 - While opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the case of the petitioner is on different footing. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners, namely, Chunu Thakur, Alind Rai @ Alindra Rai and Raj Kumar Rai @ Ram Bilash Rai are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M./Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C.IV, Bettiah, West Champaran in Bettiah Town P.S. Case No.166 of 2009 subject to the following conditions : (i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioners. (ii) That the bailor shall also state on affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioners are implicated in any other case of similar nature after their release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse. (iii) That the petitioners will give an - 4 - N.H./ undertaking that they will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if they fail to do so on two given dates and delays the trial in any manner, their bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse. (iv) That the petitioners will be well represented on each date and if they fail to do so on two consecutive dates, their bail will be liable to be cancelled. ( Shyam Kishore Sharma,J.)