1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1343 of 2009 DAYA RAVIDAS @ DAYVA SON OF BHUNESHWAR RAVIDAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DIPAKARHAR,P.S.KHAIRA,DISTRICT JAMUI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- Cr.Misc. No.33638 of 2008 BHUNNA SAH SON OF LATE KARTIK SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RUPABAL,P.S. KHAIRE,DISTRICT JAMUI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 27.2.2009 By order dated 18.2.2009, both the above applications were disposed of but in the cause title of the order, second case i.e. Cr.Misc.No. 33638 of 2008 has been omitted to be mentioned, though it is mentioned in the second paragraph of the order. It appears that by order dated 18.2.2009 the prayer for bail of petitioners of both the applications had been rejected. The order dated 18.2.2009 is modified to the extent that it shall be deemed to have been passed with regard to both the above applications. After going through the order 18.2.2009, it further appears that there is apparent mistakes in the order regarding expression and the same have not been properly and correctly typed by the P.A. concerned. So I am of the view that the said order needs to be re-cast. As such, the order dated 18.2.2009 is being re-cast and the following order shall be deemed to have been passed on 18.2.2009: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel appearing for the informant. Cr.Misc.No. 1343 of 2009 filed on behalf of Daya Ravidas alias Dayva and 2 Cr.Misc.No. 33638 of 2008 filed on behalf of Bhunna Sah have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order because both the cases have arisen out of one and the same police case which was initially registered for offences under Sections 364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on when victim was killed, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. The petitioners are named accused in the case. The informant has alleged that her husband Bhola Sao was kidnapped by these petitioners and other accused persons namely, Munna Sah, Mahesh Sah, Sukhdeo Ravidas, Sukhdeo Turi and two unknown. The informant has alleged that when demand of ransom of Rs.2,00,000/- was not fulfilled, then her husband was killed. Submission is that the petitioners are not related with the alleged killing of the deceased rather at best the allegation against them is for taking away the husband of the informant. Further submission is that the petitioners are in custody for about two years. It is also submitted that similarly situated co- accused Munna Sah and Raju Rai have been granted bail by this Court Vide order passed in Cr.Misc.No. 32092 of 2007 and Cr.Misc.No. 51026 of 2007 and there was 3 allegation against them of killing the husband of the informant. It appears that the prayer for bail of named two co-accused Mahesh Sah and Sukhdeo Ravidas against whom there is allegation of kidnapping have been rejected by different orders of this Court and the case of the petitioners are similar to them. It appears from the impugned order that the bail granted by a Bench of this Court to co-accused Muuna Sah has been cancelled Vide Cr.Misc. 49134 of 2007 on 26.2.2008. Considering the allegations, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected.” Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)