IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.48080 of 2007 PANKAJ MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5 16.5.2008 Heard. This is a case under Sections 364/302/34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. It is stated in the FIR that the miscreants and the petitioner called the deceased. The deceased went with them and did not return in the night and on the sound of firing the informant along with her father and others went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased lying and she also saw petitioner along with others with fire arms fleeing away from the place. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the allegations petitioner was last seen with the deceased and secondly no one saw him committing the murder, rather he was seen fleeing from the P.O. He referred to para 15 of the case diary and contended that a witness of the village has stated before the police that the informant only disclosed about missing of the deceased and then he (witness) heard about death of the deceased. The witness has further stated before the police that a murder had taken place in the family of co-accused Surendra Prasad and they were doubting the hands of the deceased and his family members in this murder. So, the suspicion goes on the co-accused Surendra Prasad and not on the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for more than 1 ½ years and the case is based on circumstantial evidence only. From perusal of the case diary, I find that witnesses has supported the prosecution case seeing the petitioner also going with the deceased and fleeing away from the place of occurrence, where murder was committed. The statement of one witnesses at para 12 of the case diary, it has also come that the deceased was given a contract work of bridge construction and the petitioner had demanded money by way of extortion and when money was not paid to him, the deceased was done to death. Therefore, in view of the evidence available in the case diary, I do not feel inclined to release the petitioner on bail. His prayer for bail is, therefore, rejected for the present. DKS/ (Rekha Kumari, J)