SK GYASUDDIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allegation of missing of a girl aged about 10 years in the evening of 19-12-1990 and recovery of her dead body on 18-121990 in the early morning after FIR was lodged by father of the missing girl on 12-12-1990 at Balichandrapur Police Station which has the out come to arrest the three accused persons on 19-2-1991 is subject matter of this application for bail u/S.439, Cr. P.C.

(2.) Petitioner No.1 is a leading personality of his community to which the girl also belongs. There is some material (to show?) that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are his associates. Investigation in this case by Officer-in-charge of the Police Station till 18-12-1990 could not lead to any result. Circle Inspector took up investigation after dead body was found. He also could not make any progress. Investigation was transferred to Crime Branch and the first Inspector who could not proceed further. The present investigating officer has arrested the accused persons.

(3.) From the investigation till this stage there is no material directly connecting the accused persons. Some materials are available to indicate at the time when girl is alleged to be missing, the three accused persons were found nearby. Girl was heard to make a cry which was heard by a lady and another person. That person saw the three accused under a tree and the girl near about that tree when he crossed them to go to the bazar. On hearing the cry he looked back and did not find the girl or the three accused persons. There are some other materials on the case diary which reasonably created suspicion in the mind of the police officer that accused persons might have been connected with the crime. If I elaborate the same at this stage, it may be prejudicial to the accused persons. I can only state that suspicion of the investigating Officer cannot be said to be un-reasonable or on account of extraneous consideration at this stage.