IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26678 of 2009 RANJAY SINGH @ RANJAY KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 17/09/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is in custody in a police case under Sections- 364 of I.P.C. The allegations are for the abduction of a 22 year old coal dealer by four persons on the point of firearms. Later he has been done to death. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his name has transpired on the confession of co- accused Pradeep Yadav who has been granted bail by this Court on 25.8.2008 in Cr. Misc. No.23373/08. It is next submitted that another co-accused Anil Singh who had gone to receive the ransom amount and was apprehended has been granted bail in Cr. Misc. No.4869/08. He has not named the petitioner. Apart from the same one Preetu Singh, named by Pradeep Yadav, has also been granted bail in Cr. Misc. No.53318/07. Several others have also been granted bail. Pradeep Yadav came for bail to this Court earlier in Cr. Misc. No.28533/07. This Court rejected 2 his prayer for bail on 10.10.2007 after noticing that the mobile phone, from which 13 calls had been made on the day of kidnapping to and fro, from Shambhu Prasad, is alleged to be the kingpin of the episode, was recovered from the petitioner Pradeep Kumar Yadav, and stood in the name of Suraj Singh, the father of the petitioner being named as Suraj Yadav. Pradeep Yadav has named the petitioner, the recovery of the mobile from Pradeep Yadav assumes great significance and at this stage it cannot be considered simpliciter that the name of the petitioner by the aforesaid accused was a simple matter of being named by a co-accused for grant of bail. On 25.8.2008 when Pradeep Yadav came to be granted bail in Cr. Misc. No.23373/08 it was stated that Anil Singh, who was caught at the time he had gone to collect ransom, has been enlarged on bail and there was nothing against Pradeep Yadav except his own confession. It appears that the recovery of the mobile phone used during abduction as noticed above in the order of rejection dated 10.10.2007 was not adequately brought to the attention of the Court when it granted bail on 25.8.2008. Anil Singh came to this Court first in Cr. Misc. No.34925/07. The prayer for bail was rejected along with Cr. Misc. No.32884/07 (Lakhan Yadav vs. 3 State of Bihar) noticing that he was caught on the spot while he had gone to collect ransom near the Kalauna Hill. He has then been granted bail in Cr. Misc. No.4869/08 on 8.2.2008 on the submission that it will take time for the trial to conclude and he was in custody since 29.11.2006. Bail was, therefore, granted to him in less than one and a half years custody, without taking into account the nature of the materials noticed against him in Cr. Misc. No.34925/07 while rejecting the prayer for bail and which does not appear to have been properly placed before the Court. Preetu Singh who is alleged to have been named by Pradeep Kumar Yadav in like manner as the petitioner came to this Court for bail in Cr. Misc. No.27038/07. His prayer for bail was rejected on 5.7.2007 noticing from paragraph-166 of the case diary that he had been named by Anil Singh and also the person from whom the mobile used in demanding the ransom had been recovered (Pradeep Yadav). He came to this Court again in Cr. Misc. No.53318/07 when bail was granted on the ground of slow progress of the trial and the submission that there was no active involvement insofar as the petitioner was concerned. It is quite apparent that the earlier order of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.27038/07 of the materials noticed from the 4 case diary with regard to him were not brought to the attention of the Court. The victim is still traceless and the impugned order of rejection notices from paragraph-62 of the supplementary case diary that the victim Pappu Singh had been killed as the aim of ransom could not materialize. In each bail application filed before this Court, the registry is required to place a computer print out giving party name and result of the several bail applications that may have been filed against a common F.I.R. The purpose and aim of this was to maintain consistency in the orders of the Court both with regard to grant of bail and rejection of bail by ensuring the availability of the records of the other cases also. The allegations are heinous, of abduction, demand for ransom and killing for non-fulfillment of ransom. The law stands well settled that criminality and graveness of the offence makes the period of custody irrelevant. The application is rejected. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)