RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Heard the parties. The petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. No. 34A of 2009 arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 112 of 2006, G.R. Case No. 438 of 2006.
(2.) It has been alleged that the accused persons had come to the house of the informant and had abducted her husband. Subsequently, dead body of her husband was recovered. The petitioner seems to have been implicated on the basis of 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Yusuf Mian @ Yusuf Ansari, which was recorded after one month from the date of occurrence.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial of Mariam Bibi had progressed and said Yusuf Mian @ Yusuf Ansari was examined as P.W-8 and although he has stated similar to what he had stated in the statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. but the same had been disbelieved by the learned trial court while acquitting Mariam Bibi. Learned counsel has submitted that according to the prosecution, the incident is said to have taken place in the house of the present informant and there are large number of houses in the nearby but none of the witnesses have stated witnessing any such occurrence. It has further been submitted that as per the version of Yusuf Mian @ Yusuf Ansari, Mariam Bibi was equally responsible for the murder. It has also been submitted that although Yusuf Mian @ Yusuf Ansari had stated about two gun shot being fired at the deceased but the postmortem report reveals otherwise as in the statement of P.W-16-Dr. Vinod Kumar Saha, in the trial of Mariam Bibi, there was gun one shot injury found on the person of the deceased. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. It appears that in the FIR, there is no mention about the involvement of the petitioner in committing the murder. The FIR was instituted on 11.08.2006 and the statement of Yusuf Mian @ Yusuf Ansari under section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 1.11.2006, which is almost three months from the date of occurrence. It also appears that in the FIR, nothing has been stated about witnessing the occurrence or the involvement of the petitioner. ;