IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10888 of 2010 1. RAM EKBAL SAH, SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR SAH. 2. RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJESH SAH. 3. SURESH SAH. BOTH SONS OF RAM EKBAL SAH. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BANKATTA, P.S. BENIPATTI, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. ……………………………………………….PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR……………..OPPOSITE PARTY. -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate. For the State : Mr. U.S.P. Singh, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate. ----------- 4. 19.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 27 of the Arms Act. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are not named in the First Information Report. Petitioner no.1 is brother of the deceased whereas the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are sons of the petitioner no.1. The - 2 - informant, who happens to be the employee of the deceased claims to have seen the miscreants and further claimed that he could identify them, if they are produced before him. However, the petitioners have been named on the alleged self incriminating confessional statement of the co-accused, Trilok Kumar Jha, recorded by the police, claiming that he alongwith co-accused, Pradeep Kumar Jha, had killed the deceased at the instigation of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid confessional statement does not have evidentiary value and there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioners had given a contract to kill the deceased. Further submission is that the co-accused, Pradeep Kumar Jha as well as Trilok Kumar Jha, both were put on T.I. Parade, however, the informant did not identify them. Thus, submission is that the entire story of giving contract to kill the deceased at the behest of the petitioners is falsified. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that some of the witnesses have disclosed that the co-accused, Pradeep Kumar Jha, was seen moving in the motorcycle alongwith a weapon after the occurrence and the co- - 3 - accused, Trilok Kumar Jha, was apprehended alongwith a fire arms for which a separate case has been lodged. The allegation, which has emerged during the course of investigation, is that they had been hired for killing the deceased. In reply thereof, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no such allegation in the First Information Report nor there is any evidence on record, collected during the course of investigation, to show that such contract was ever given by the petitioners except the self incriminating confessional statement of co-accused Trilok Kumar Jha. Further contention is that there is nothing on record to show that the fire arm recovered from the possession of the co-accused Trilok Kumar Jha was a weapon which was used in the occurrence and above all the co-accused persons alleged to be the contract killers have not been identified by the informant, who had claimed that he could identify the miscreants. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioners, namely, (1) Ram Ekbal Sah, (2) Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Sah and (3) Suresh Sah, are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bond - 4 - of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, in connection with Benipatti P.S. Case No.204/09, with a further condition the petitioners shall remain present on each and every date during the course of the trial in the court below. If the petitioners fail to remain present on two consecutive dates during the course of the trial without any reasonable cause being shown, the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)