IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18368 of 2011 MD. SHAHABUDDIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 02.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the First Information Report is that Ramesh Kumar Pandey, the brother of the deceased heard that on 13.07.1998 his brother has been killed at the petrol pump. When he went to the place of occurrence he learnt that four or five unknown persons have come and shot his brother dead. It has been specifically stated in the First Information Report that the persons who were present at the petrol pump may have seen the occurrence. After investigation the final form was accepted on 18.09.2000 for the occurrence of the year 1998, holding the case to be true, but a case of no evidence. The informant was present when the final form was submitted, no protest was filed, which would be apparent from the order dated 28.08.2000. From Annexure-4 the order sheet dated 2 12.11.2007 an application was filed in Court by C.I.D., for re-investigation which was rejected. The Court finally allowed the re- investigation by order dated 08.02.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Radhe Shyam Pandey, who is also the brother of the deceased had filed an application on 11.08.1999 before the Human Rights Commission that he is eye witness of the occurrence and therefore, further investigation should be made by the C.I.D. On the application of Radhe Shyam Pandey, further re-investigation has been made by the C.I.D. It would appear that this petitioner has been remanded in the present case as a result of the further re- investigation in the case. Radhe Shyam Pandey did not file a protest in Court or take any steps in this matter, although he claims to be eye witness, It is submitted that he ought to have disclosed these facts to his brother or independently approached the Court. Counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application stating that the brother Radhe Shyam Pandey is eye witness and there is evidence in the case diary of C.I.D. regarding this aspect. It is submitted that the evidence, re-investigation, is after 12 years 3 of the occurrence, and has no value in the eye of law, and will eventually be tested during trial. Counsel for the petitioner, also submits that if Radhe Shyam Pandey was an eye witness to this case, he would have immediately informed his brother, the informant regarding the participation of the petitioner in the occurrence. The fact that he did not do so puts a question mark on the entire investigation especially in view of the fact that he is not been shown to be present at the P.O. In the F.I.R. It is submitted that virtually a new case is being put forth at the behest of Radhey Shyam. Even according to Radhe Shyam the motivation is political rivalry, which can cut both ways. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner, namely, Md. Shahabuddin, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siwan, in connection with, Siwan Town P.S. Case No. 102 of 1998. Safik ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )