IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41972 of 2010 RAJU SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 22.12.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case under section 364 of the Penal Code to which section 302 of the Penal Code was added subsequently. It is alleged by the informant Ramayan Singh that on 9.2.2010 at 9.00 P.M. his son Sunil Kumar Singh received a call on his mobile and went out telling him that he would return within ten minutes. It is further alleged that Sunil Kumar Singh possessed two mobiles bearing nos.9771158359 and 9608339444. The informant learnt from the villagers that while Sunil Kumar Singh went out , he met with Bhim Singh, Chandan Singh and Bhushan Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and he has been implicated in the instant case on his own confession wherein it is alleged that he has stated that he made call to the victim. He further submits that the petitioner has been implicated in view of the statement recorded paragraph 105 of the case diary wherein it has been stated that on the statement of the petitioner the dead body of the deceased was recovered near from a ditch. Learned counsel further submits that the mobile in question does not belong to the petitioner rather it belongs to one Renu Devi with whom the petitioner does not have any concern. He further 2 KHAN submits that mere saying that the dead body was recovered on the statement of the petitioner would not be sufficient material. The petitioner ought to have been taken to the place from where the dead body was recovered. Further more, the confessional statement of the petitioner before the learned Magistrate was recorded belatedly after 4-5 days of the occurrence. The inquest report does not show that as on whose confession the dead body was recovered from the ditch. He further submits that there is no admissible circumstance in terms of section 27 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner is in custody since 17.2.2010. This court earlier rejected the bail application of the petitioner by order dated 22.9.2010 passed in Cr.Misc.No.17894 of 2010 with liberty to renew his prayer for bail after two months. Having regard to the fact that there is no direct evidence to show that the petitioner namely Raju Singh has killed the deceased, he is directed to be released on bail in connection with Shahpur P.S. Case No.28 of 2010 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara subject to the condition that he shall not absent himself in the court below for two consecutive dates till four witnesses are examined in the trial. The failure to comply with the aforesaid condition would lead to automatic cancellation of his bail bond save and except with permission of the court. (S.P.Singh,J) 3