SIDDHARTHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for bail has been filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner Siddhartha who has been taken into custody in connection with Kadam Kuan P.S. Case No. 574/98 dated 5.9.98. This case was initially instituted for the offence under Sections 307, 226 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act on the basis of a fardbyan of one Rohan Prakash. Subsequently, Sections 302, 120(B) I.P.C. were also added.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as follows. Originally this case was instituted on the basis of a fardbyan of one Rohan Prakash who alleged to be studying at the residence of Prof. J.C. Banerjee at Rajendranagar, just before the time of occurrence when one boy came and called Abhishek (deceased) and Abhishek went out of the door. He was fired by that boy and was killed. In course of investigation, the Police found that the entire occurrence happened on an alleged conspiracy hatched up at the bed room of this petitioner Siddhartha. This petitioner Siddhartha is the king-pin of the entire conspiracy and it was executed by him through the co-accused Arnit Das, according to his imagination. The Police arrested the 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 Siddhartha. He also accepted the fact that he committed the murder but at the instigation of this petitioner. The occurrence happened as the informant Rohan Prakash was in love with one Pallavi, a co-student who used to study tuition with Prof. J.C. Banerjee along with Abhishek and Rohan Prakash. It is said that Rohan used to love Pallavi but Pallavi used to like Abhishek. This infuriated the co-accused persons and under the leadership of this petitioner and in his guidance the occurrence happened. Thus, though the F.I.R. was instituted against unknown, Police found the conduct of the informant Rohan Prakash suspicious and the informant along with this petitioner Siddhartha, Arnit Das, the assailant were made accused in this case. Co-accused Luxman, the servant of the petitioner has absconded.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, this petitioner is not the main assailant. It is co-accused Arnit Das who is said to have fired and killed the deceased Abhishek. At best the allegation against this petitioner is that of a conspirator. It is also submitted that the motive for the occurrence has also not been established by the prosecution.