IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50793 of 2008 1. LEELA YADAV, son of Late Sahraiy Yadav, 2. Bali Yadav, son of Teka Yadav, both resident of village – Jaihara, P.S. – Bodh-Gaya, District - Gaya Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 21.1.2009 The two petitioners above named are accused in a case under section 302 etc. I.P.C. and section 27 of Arms Act. The allegation is that not getting compromise elicited from the informant and others who were witnesses in a murder trial, the accused persons surrounded the informant and others while they were on a road and on the orders of accused Teka Yadav, three accused i.e. Mago Yadav, Chandrashekhar Yadav and Foto Yadav fired shots or dealt blows with different weapons on Ishwar Yadav. When the brother and nephew of the informant ran to intervene, Ram Sewak Yadav fired a shot as a result of which, Anil Yadav fell down. Anil Yadav was fired shot also by accused Ranjit Yadav and Ramjit Yadav whereas Bholu Yadav dealt blows with garasa on Anil Yadav. Birendra Yadav and petitioners Leela Yadav and Bali Yadav were merely standing with 2 garasa and pistol respectively. Learned counsel for the informant resists prayer of the petitioners for bail on the ground that other accused persons are still absconding and that in the backdrop of the incident of not getting a compromise elicited from the informant and his family members, it is contended, it would not be advisable to direct release of the petitioners on bail. Considering that there is no overt act alleged against the petitioners and they are merely alleged to be by-standers, definitely armed with some weapons, let the petitioners above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10000/(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Gaya in Bodh Gaya P.S. Case no. 121 of 2008 with the condition that if at all the petitioners are found tampering with the evidence, bullying or intimidating any of witnesses of the earlier case i.e. Gaya Mufassil P.S. Case no. 64 of 2005 or the present case i.e. Bodh Gaya P.S. Case no. 121 of 2008 and the court, being satisfied about the acts complained of in the above behalf, could assume that this order has not been passed in respect of 3 the two petitioners and take steps for taking them into custody. The contention is that other accused persons are not appearing in the case. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya is required to be impressed upon by sending a copy of this order that witness protection is one of the tools we have forged recently in our administration of criminal justice system and if at all, a prima facie case requiring witness protection appears before the police and it chooses to sit tied over the matter without enforcing the law, then, not only the faith of general public from the system shall wane but more cases of the nature shall multiply. This could not be in the interest of the society. It is never in the interest of a particular person or a group of persons. I believe that the Superintendent of Police, Gaya understands and appreciates the observation made hereinabove and acts fast so as to erasing the impression in the mind of the informant of non-apprehension of the accused/non-enforcement of the rule of law. 4 Let a copy of this order be made available to Sri Chaubey Jawahar, the Additional Public Prosecutor for taking up the matter with right officials in the establishment. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )