IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40193 of 2009 ANIKET KUMAR, son of Sri Sanjay Singh, resident of village Allahabad Bank Colony, Mourya Path, Khajpura, P.S. Rajiv Nagar, District Patna Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 25.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner faces prosecution for offence u/ss 353, 307, 333, 332, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner’s complicity has emerged in course of investigation wherein he also is said to be one of the members of the gang which had allegedly kidnapped a local business man of Patna and when chased by the police had resorted to firing on the police party and thus not only endangering their life but also causing obstruction in their official duty. Counsel for the petitioner, however, was quite emphatic that the prosecution seems to be wholly biased against the petitioner, inasmuch as it was the petitioner who had given evidence both before the police as also in the court on which the prosecution could secure 2 conviction of the other co-accused in the connected case of kidnapping. He has in fact also assailed the conduct of the police in making him accused though those materials were already available to the police way back in the year 2006 itself. This Court would find that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner on exactly the same materials and almost with the same submissions was noticed by this Court in the order dated 10.7.2009 in Cr.Misc.No. 5714/2009 and this Court at that occasion had recorded as follows: “It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the case is registered against the driver of the vehicle and three unknown. Petitioner is not the driver of the vehicle. He has been implicated as one of the three unknown. It is further submitted that the petitioner boarded the vehicle in question after the vehicle reached Fatuha having dropped the victim and the kidnappers near Kanti Factory in Kankarbagh locality of Patna Town. On the basis of aforesaid statement of fact, it is submitted that the petitioner is not involved in the kidnapping of 3 the victim, as such, should be admitted to the privilege of bail in the event of arrest. I regret not to accept such submission in view of the fact that having alighted the victim and the kidnappers near Kanti Factory in Kankarbagh locality of Patna Town, the vehicle was being taken to Rajgir so that through the vehicle and the driver, the kidnappers may not be traced. In the way near Fatuha services of the petitioner was taken to achieve the purpose. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to the privilege of bail in the event of arrest.” In the opinion of this Court those reasons still stand good even for the regular bail of the petitioner. There would be infact no estoppel against the police that if it had not earlier made the petitioner accused, it could not have done so at a later stage, especially when the petitioner's own statement before the police in the other case had disclosed sufficient material to show his complicity in the offence inasmuch as no prudent person is expected to Fatuha at an odd hour in night 4 for joining the company of the accused persons for a pleasure trip to Rajgir. Thus when the petitioner in the statement before the police in his earlier case had himself admitted of be fully aware of the kidnapping as also remaining in company with the co- accused in course of chase and recovery by the police as his involvement in the part of the occurrence relating to shorting at the police party will itself be good enough to establish sharing common intention with the other co-accused. Thus the prosecution case of the petitioner being the third person as an inmate in the car in which the victim was earlier kidnapped and from which firing was made on police on party in course of its chase stands now wholly established by the materials connected by the police in course of investigation. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and consequently his prayer for bail is, therefore, rejected. The trial of the petitioner may be expedited. Surendra/ (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)