SIDHARTHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Supplementary affidavit and another additional affidavit had been filed on behalf of the petitioner at the time of hearing. They are kept on record.

(2.) THIS application for bail filed by the petitioner Sidhartha was put up yesterday for hearing. Sri R.K.Jain, Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri S.D. Yadav, Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State were heard.

(3.) THE brief facts of this case may be mentioned as follows. Initially, this case was instituted on the basis of Fard Beyan of one Rohan Prakash under Sections 307, 226 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. Subsequently, Section 302, 120(B) I.P.C. were also added. The informant Rohan Prakash was alleged to be studying at the residence of Prof. J.C. Banerjee at Rajendranagar, Patna just before the time of occurrence. The deceased Abhisek was also studying with him. At that time one boy came and called Abhisek (deceased). Abhisek went out of the door. He was fired by that boy and he was killed. In course of investigation the Police found that the entire occurrence happened on alleged conspiracy hatched up at the bedroom of this petitioner Sidhartha. Sidhartha executed the entire game plan through co -accused Arnit Das. The Police arrested co -accused Arnit Das who gave his statement under Section 164(2) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate and accepted the entire conspiracy hatched up by this accused -petitioner Sidhartha. He also accepted the fact that he committed the murder at the instigation of the petitioner. The motive for the occurrence was said to be the fact that the informant Rohan Prakash was in love with Pallavi, a co -student who used to take tuition from Prof. J.C. Banerjee alongwith Abhisek. It is said that Rohan Prakash used to love Pallavi but Pallavi used to love Abhisek. This infuriated the co -accused persons and under the guidance of the petitioner, the occurrence happened. Initially, the F.I.R. was instituted against unknown, Subsequently, the Police found the conduct of the informant Rohan Prakash suspicious and the informant alongwith the petitioner Sidhartha, Arnit Das and one Luxman the servant of the petitioner, were made accused in this case. However, co -accused Luxman is absconding and, thus, the investigation is still pending against him.