IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24942 of 2009 SANJAY SINGH SON OF SRI SHE PUJAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BAMHOUR KHAS, P.S. MOHANIA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR AT BHABHUA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 5 19.3.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under section 302 of the Penal Code. The informant Sanjay Pandey is the brother of the deceased Navin Pandey @ Appu Pandey. He lodged a written report on 30.4.2009 stating therein that his brother was arrested in a case of theft of battery instituted at the behest of this petitioner. It is alleged that on 29.4.2009 at 11 A.M. the deceased fled away from the police lock up and on that very evening at 8 P.M., the petitioner and his friend caught and killed him and kept his dead body on the road. The occurrence took place as the accused wanted to establish supremacy in the village which the informant’s brother opposed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was arrested in a theft case of battery lodged by one Mukhram Singh being Mohania P.S.Case No.115 of 2009 dated 28.4.2009 under section 379 of the Penal Code. The deceased Navin Pandey @ Appu Pandey fled from the police custody on 29.4.2009 and a report to that effect was lodged by the Chaukiar Mukhlal Paswan giving rise to Mohania P.S. Case No.116 of 2009 dated 29.4.2009. The deceased while fleeing came in contact with electric wire as a result of which he sustained injuries all over his body. He 2 further submits that both the inquest report and the post mortem report would show that the deceased died on account of electrocution. There is no eye witness of the entire occurrence. One Neelam Pandey and Hari Shankar Pandey, the sister and father of the deceased stated that the death was caused by throttling. It would appear from their statements that they are not eye witness to the occurrence. Learned counsel submits that at the most, the allegation against the petitioner would be one of suspicion. The Dy. S.P. who supervised the case had recommended for submission of charge sheet under section 306 of the Penal Code. Counsel for the informant states that the petitioner was annoyed with the deceased and even after Panchayati he got a case instituted under section 379 of the Penal Code. He submits that the petitioner along with others had committed murder and has given colour of electrocution. It would appear from paragraph 6 of the order of learned Sessions Judge that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. Further more, no one stated that the petitioner was seen with the deceased either prior to the occurrence or even after the occurrence. The inquest report and the post mortem report do not support the case of murder, but supports the case of electrocution. In the circumstances, the petitioner Sanjay Singh is directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest/surrender within six weeks from today, in connection with Mohania P.S. Case No. 117 of 2009 on furnishing bail bond of 3 KHAN Rs.5,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua subject to the condition that he will not absent himself in the court below for two consecutive dates till three witnesses are examined in trial. (S.P.Singh,J)