RAM EKBAL RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by the complainant/petitioner in terms of Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. praying therein to cancel the order of granting bail as well as bail bond in pursuance of dated 6.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 527 of 2010 arising out of Complaint Case No. 82 of 2006 to the Opposite Party No. 2 Praduman Rai. Before coming to the main issue, the brief facts of the case is to be taken note of for proper appreciation of merits of the case. Petitioner/informant/complainant Ram Ekbal Rai had given his fardbeyan on 15.11.1999 at about 1.45 P.M. disclosing therein that during course of gossip alongwith Janardan Rai, Ramjee Rai, Jaimangal Rai at his Darwaja, Sudama Singh, Praduman Rai armed with country-made gun, Pramod Rai, armed with country made gun, Manan Rai came and enquired about Brajbhushan @ Munna (deceased) who, till then was inside the house. He came out and seeing whom, Sudama and Manan ordered over which Praduman had repeatedly shot at causing instantaneous death.

(2.) Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 71 of 1999 was registered, and during midst of investigation, the case was taken up by the CID and on the plea of alibi, Opposite Party No. 2 Praduman Rai alongwith Sudama Rai was not sent up for trial while charge-sheet was submitted against the remaining two. However, a protest petition was there. Other intervening circumstances are not required to be detailed save and except, the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1660 of 2005 (Annexure-8) had directed to proceed with the protest petition and on account thereof treating the protest as complaint an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., commenced whereupon Opposite Party No. 2 alongwith co-accused were summoned to face trial. It is also evident from Annexure-12 as well as Annexure-13, prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner found rejected by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Subsequently thereof, after expiry of so many years, petitioner surrendered and was under custody only for few days when by the order impugned, he has been granted bail and on account thereof, the order impugned has been brought up under challenge.

(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that order itself suggests that it is suffering from arbitrariness portion as well as collusiveness, it has further been submitted that Praduman Rai, Opposite Party No. 2 is sole person against whom there happens to be specific allegation that he made successive firing causing death of deceased Brajbhushan @ Munna. It has also been submitted that the post mortem report clearly speaks with regard to presence of gun shot injury over the dead body of deceased which happens to be ante mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death. In spite of that, the learned Lower Court had not mentioned the allegation and to justify the granting of bail, picked up and pasted in his order the last concluding portion of the fardbeyan having no concern with the allegation which had already been detailed against each of the accused at relevant place in the fardbeyan which they had played at the time of commission of the occurrence. The conduct of the P.O. concerned at the relevant moment speaks that the learned Presiding Officer was found influenced one way or the other and under such hidden theme, the learned P.O. intentionally left out to mention the fact that petitioner caused the main allegation being author of the fatal injuries.