IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19267 of 2010 JAWAHAR LAL @ JAWAHAR LAL RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 27.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is languishing in jail since 02.02.2010 in a case registered under sections 364/341 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 28.01.2010 one Saurav Kumar came to the house of informant and took away Chandu Kumar the son of informant. Subsequently informant saw on main-road Nasariganj the victim with Saurav Kumar though eight persons were also seen standing there including the petitioner. Subsequently search was made in the house of Saurav Kumar and ultimately F.I.R. was loeged on 30.01.2010. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence took place on 28.01.2010 at 7 P.M.whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 30.01.2010 at 10.20 P.M. The main allegation is against Saurav Kumar who subsequently admitted his guilt to have kidnapped and killed the victim boy but did not name the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that F.I.R. was lodged after more than forty eight hours and search was made only in the house of Saurav Kumar but the petitioner has been implicated only because he - 2 - deposed against the informant’s father in the title suit No. 686 of 1988, as contained in Annexure-3. It is further contended that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is aged about 75 years. It is also contended that paragraphs of case diary quoted in the impugned order do not support the involvement of the petitioner as no independent witness has named the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the informant that the petitioner was seen subsequently where main accused Saurav Kumar was standing with victim and the F.I.R. was lodged after two days only because the informant was trying to locate the victim boy. It has further been contended that during the investigation though no direct evidence has been found against the petitioner but there is circumstantial evidence against the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid submissions, for the purposes of bail only, particularly that main allegation is against Saurav Kumar who subsequently admitted his guilt and did not name the petitioner but only suspicion has been raised against the petitioner, having no criminal antecedent and petitioner being aged 75 years, let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Danapur P.S. Case No. 25 of 2010. - 3 - It is made clear that the bail bond of the petitioner be accepted only when he has no criminal antecedent and the learned trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner if he fails to appear on two consecutive dates. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) BTiwary/