IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5272 of 2011 1. BIJAN RAI, SON OF LATE RAMA RAI. 2. GUDDU RAI @ AMIT RAI, SON OF SHRI BIJAN RAI. 3. KAKA @ SHEO SAGAR RAI, SON OF PARMESHWAR RAI. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MURERA, POLICE STATION-HATHUA, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 23.03.2011 The three petitioners are in custody in relation to Mirganj P.S. Case No.98 of 2010 instituted under Section 302, 201 I.P.C. Petitioner no.1 is the father of petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.3 is their driver. Petitioner no.1 is the owner of brick kiln. It appears that a badly mutilated, strangulated dead body of person was seen by the village Chowkidar. The identity could not be established. On basis of the photograph of the dead body police started making enquiries and at the brick kiln of petitioner no.1, some people identified it as that of one Sitaram Manjhi who was a labourer at the brick kiln. In course of investigation it then revealed that petitioner no.1 had apparently illicit relationship with the deceased. The petitioner then killed the deceased and he along with his son and the driver loaded the body in his vehicle and went away to dispose it. There are three statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. All these statements and stories come long after the incident. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, learned Senior Counsel points out that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. To the contrary the statements of the wife of the deceased is that whe she returned from work on the brick kiln she found the dead body of her husband with rope round his neck. There are no statements of any witness having seen petitioner no.1 or any of the petitioners kill the deceased. The statement at best is that 2 petitioner no.1 on being informed, he along with his son and the driver came in a car and took away the dead body for disposal to hush up the matter. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that at best it would be a case under Section 201. Having perused the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as appended to the application itself, it is apparent that so far as the petitioners involved in killing of Sitaram Manjhi is concerned the allegation is based on suspicion and there is no direct evidence in that regards. That leaves the part of carry away the dead body for disposal. Then it is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that though the story built by prosecution is that the said Sitaram Manjhi was strung to death, the dead body was found severely mutilated to avoid identification which the postmortem report found it to be ante mortem injuries and not postmortem injuries that makes a prosecution story not consistent with injuries found. Having considered the matter in my view the petitioners may be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Ist A.D.J., Gopalganj in connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No.98 of 2010, once the charges are framed in the case by the trial court in Sessions Trial No.679/2010 itself, let the trial also thereafter be expedited. PN ( Navaniti Prasad Singh ,J.)