Ruddal Kurmi @ Akela vs. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5075 of 2008 RUDDAL KURMI @ AKELA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR -----------

3 9.5.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. representing State.

This is an application for bail for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Though the petitioner is not named in the First Informant Report but it has come in course of investigation that armed gang of 10-12 persons including the petitioner had caught hold one Hanan Ansari @ Mintoo and Manan Ansari @ Mung Ansari on the road and they had carried away both of the aforementioned persons and thereafter they were also done to death in an adjacent field.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement contained in paragraph no. 10 to 14 of the case diary which was relied by the Trial Court for rejecting the bail of the petitioner, do not inspire confidence because though witnesses had claimed to be eyewitnesses of the occurrence by naming the petitioner and others armed with weapon carrying away the two deceased persons and killing them in the adjacent field but their such statement lacks conviction because all of them have stated that they had reasons to believe that the petitioner and others had killed the two deceased persons. He further submits that the petitioner is a well to do person having more than 20 Bighas of land and is a farmer and has no connection with the MCC group. Finally, he has also submitted that this Court has already granted bail to the two co-accused persons namely Ajay Singh by an order dated 4.4.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9697 of 2007 and Ahtesham Khan @ Saddam Khan @ Saddam Hussain by order dated 13.7.2007 passed in Misc. No. 27666 of 2007.

On the other hand, Counsel for the State submits that there is a consistent statement in the first part of the case diary by several eye witnesses that the petitioner with others armed with weapons had lifted the two deceased persons holding from the road where they were preparing rope and thereafter they were done to death in the adjacent field. He has explained that the statement of those very witnesses that they had full confidence that they were done to death by the petitioner and others can not take away the credibility of the earlier part of their definite statement where they had claimed to be an eye witness to the entire occurrence. As with regard to the claim of the petitioner that he has no connection with the MCC group or that he is a well to do farmer, counsel for the State has brought to my notice the paragraph no. 275 of the case diary which goes to show that the petitioner is facing similar prosecution in another criminal case and on that basis it has been urged that such involvement of the petitioner in this case is not false. He has also submitted that the order granting bail to Ahtesham Khan is based on an order dated 4.4.2007 granting bail to Ajay Singh and the attention of this Court was not invited towards the statements in the case diary inasmuch as it appears that Ahtesham Khan was granted bail on the very first day when the matter was taken up.

Having considered the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that this Court did not have the opportunity to consider the statements of eyewitnesses in the case diary while granting bail to Ahtesham Khan and thereby it was not brought to the notice of this Court that there were direct eye witness showing involvement of the petitioner and other persons. In that view of the matter, the order granting bail to Ahtesham Khan cannot be used as a precedent for granting bail to the petitioner specially when there are materials showing direct involvement of the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner has an antecedent of being involved in the similar cases, therefore the plea that he is a well to do person and a farmer by itself will not cut any ice.

Thus, having been satisfied that there are eye witnesses to support the occurrence showing the direct

3

involvement of the petitioner in the matter of two innocent persons, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Consequently, this application for bail is hereby rejected.

The petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2007 and in that view of the matter, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of two and half years. In case, the trial is not concluded within the aforementioned period, the petitioner will have a liberty to first move Trial Court and the Trial Court will spell out the reasons as to why the trial had not been concluded in the aforementioned period and thereafter, the petitioner may move this Court