IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20149 of 2010 DEEPAK KUMAR @ DEEPAK KUMAR GUPTA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 04/ 07.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the brother of deceased. 2. This petition for bail has been filed by the petitioner, who is an accused for offences punishable under sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. F.I.R was lodged by a stranger who was returning to his house in the evening on 13.03.2010 after grazing cattles, when he saw the deceased along with two persons taking bhunja etc near the alleged place of occurrence, but when on the next day he went there in the morning he saw the body of the deceased person and recognized it and when the dead body was taken by the police and no one was the claimant and the whereabouts of the deceased was also not found, the body was disposed of by the police after lodging an F.I.R against unknown persons. 4. Learned counsel for the brother of the deceased submits that petitioner had taken money from the deceased for getting him appointment somewhere but it could not materialize and the deceased had gone to the petitioner for refund of the amount on 13.03.2010 and he had last talked to his brother on phone, while the deceased was with the petitioner but thereafter when the deceased did not return, the brother of the deceased met petitioner on 17.03.2010 who told him - 2 - that the deceased had come to him but after receiving phone call he had returned. It is further stated that thereafter on 19.03.2010 the brother of the deceased met Superintendent of Police and on his instructions filed informatory petition in Digha Police Station, where the police showed him photographs and belongings of the deceased whose body was found on 14.03.2010 from river Ganga and they were identified by the brother as those of the deceased. He further submits that recovery of wine bottles and bhunja was made from the spot where the deceased was seen along with two other persons by the informant. It is also stated that the petitioner was arrested by the police on 21.03.2010 whereafter he gave his confessional statement which is mentioned in Para- 38 of the case diary. 5. From the case diary, it transpires that there is no statement of any person from which it could transpire that any allegation has been made against the petitioner. Furthermore even the brother of the petitioner has never raised any suspicion that the petitioner was behind the murder of his brother. The alleged confessional statement before the police detailed in paragraph- 38 is denied by the petitioner. 6 .In the afore said circumstances, the police should have made Test Identification Parade from the informant who had seen deceased along with two other persons on the date of occurrence but although the petitioner has remained in custody for more than six months, no Test Identification Parade has been made nor any incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner. Learned - 3 - counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the arguments of the parties, this petition is allowed. Let the petitioner, namely Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Gupta be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 62 of 2010. Ranjan (S. N. Hussain, J.)