IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18488 of 2010 MD.KADIR @ ABDUL KADIR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. M.N. Jha, APP For the Informant: Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh No.1, Advocate ---------- 4 23.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also the informant. This is third visit of the petitioner before the High Court with a prayer for grant of bail in a matter in which the petitioner happens to be accused under sections 302, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. After detailed hearing done earlier the first order of rejection dated 11.9.2009 came to be passed. The entire background and the circumstances leading to implication of the petitioner was dealt with and the prayer for bail was rejected as there was evidence of complicity which emerged in the matter. The second order of rejection is dated 28.4.2010 which is annexure-1/A. Submission on behalf of petitioner now is that quite a few witnesses have been examined and none of them have named the petitioner which can pin down the culpability of petitioner except P.W.3 whose statement is also a kind of suspicion expressed by him which can at best led to inference of conspiracy. However counsel fairly submits that not all the witnesses have been examined and there are a few witnesses still - 2 - awaiting to be examined. The institution of the case has complex set of facts which have already been discussed in the first order of rejection. Thereafter two quashing applications came to be filed before the High Court, one by the petitioner and other by one Mani Kant Jha who is an accused in a case of murder of his brother when petitioner was exonerated of the charge on investigation by the police and Mani Kant Jha was made an accused. The detailed order is already on record as annexure-4 which is part of supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the present petitioner. The Court has refused to interfere in the quashing application but has given certain direction as to the manner in which the two trial shall proceed and how the trial court will deal with the cases. If this has created some impediment for the petitioner who was hoping for an early release from judicial custody, the Court can only observe that such situation has been created by the petitioner himself and the Court in any manner cannot dilute the order passed by the quashing Bench. In the opinion of this Court the situation for release of petitioner has not yet reached even though some observation has already given in the second rejection order. The prayer for bail is rejected. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)