IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35359 of 2009 RAN VIJAY SINGH @ RAN VIJAY KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 23.12.2009 I have heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh and Sri Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsels appearing for the petitioner, Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri Siya Ram Shahi, learned counsel for the informant. I have already detailed the facts of the case, if not in all orders passed earlier by me, in one such orders which is Annexure-3 to the present petition and which was passed in Cr.Misc.Petition No.26564 of 2008 and I feel that it is not required that I should restate the facts of the case once again. Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh has submitted that after submission of the chargesheet in Goh P.S.case No.7 of 2005 the Magistrate has taken cognizance by Annexure-16 as against other accused and that creates a doubt about the veracity of the allegations upon which the petitioner was made an accused and under which facts the petitioner’s prayers for bail repeatedly were refused by this court. It was - 2 - contended that the petitioner is a qualified teacher who teaches in a college and holds doctoral degree and is required to attend his duties of a professor in the college and his continued incarceration is acting as an impediment in that discharge of his duties. The contention next was that the petitioner bears a good antecedent and on account of political reasons he was falsely implicated so as to giving a set back to his political career. It was contended, lastly, that no purpose shall be served by continued confinement of the petitioner. The learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition which may be imposed upon him. The whole facts of the case have been detailed as pointed out above in my earlier order passed in Cr.Misc.No.26564 of 2008 on 22.10.2008. That order deals with some of the basic legal principles on further investigation and its result besides the meaning of further investigation. While discussing those aspects of the matter, I happened to have expressed my view that statements of witnesses which were recorded in the part of investigation early to - 3 - reopening the investigation so as to carrying out further investigation are also the part of the same investigation and as such the materials could never be ignored and after perusing some of the paragraphs both in past investigation and of the investigation further carried on, the court has refused the prayer for bail as indicated in that order. I do not find any reason to deviate from those findings as recorded by me. The fact of the case is that the petitioner is said to be the assailant of the deceased. There could be many versions of an incident. The versions have to go to trial and it could be ultimate finding of a trial court which could be giving a clean chit to an accused or convicting him. This court does not have a duty of making those decisions. As regards the contention that the petitioner is an unnecessarily rotting in jail, the court has all reasons to say that it is his own creation. When the matter was placed before the trial Judge the petitioner filed a petition under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. and on rejection of the petitioner the petitioner - 4 - preferred Cr.Misc.No.50737 of 2008 and obtained an order of stay as may appear from order dated 6.1.2009 passed in that Cr.Misc.Petition no.50737 of 2008(Annexure-19). The petition is still pending. The anxiety of the petitioner could not be undermined specially considering that on account of the stay order granted by this court the trial pends and the petitioner lingers in his incarceration. That stay appears further extended by another Bench of the court in Cr.W.J.C.Case No.640 of 2008 by order dated 22.5.2009. It is for the petitioner to take steps by mentioning before the appropriate Bench of the Court or may be before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, for the early hearing of the two petitions so that a final decision is taken in the two petitions noted above and the trial begins and the petitioner gets justice quickly and promptly. As regards the prayer for bail, I do not find any reason to review my earlier decision one of which stands approved by the Supreme Court in that background the present petition is stands dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )