Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) BAIL application filed by petitioner Anjani Singh @ Anjani Kumar Singh in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 208 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 4230 of 2013 (S.T. No. 89 of 2014), pending in the court of learned A.J.C. - V., Ranchi is moved by Sri. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri Priyadarshi, learned Additional P.P. for the State and Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant. It is alleged that the deceased was taken from his house at Lalpur, Ranchi and later on killed by the petitioner. It is submitted by Sri. V.P. Singh, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence took place in the District Aurangabad (Bihar) under Kutumba Police Station. Thus, the Court situated in the State of Jharkhand has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. It is further submitted that the statement of Anup Kumar, bodyguard of petitioner was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. after lapse of 07 days. It is further submitted that Anup Singh was apprehended by the police on 9 -8 -2013. It is, then, submitted that para -47 of the case diary reveals that Anup Singh took time for giving statement and thereafter, his statement was taken on 14.8.2013. Thus, police falsely implicating the petitioner.
(2.) IT is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no offence under Section 364 of the I.P.C. is made out because the informant, who is the mother of the deceased, had stated that deceased went with this petitioner out of his own sweet will. Thus, the question of abduction does not arise. It is further submitted that co -accused namely, Sujeet Choudhary and Sanjay Pathak have been granted bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2014 in B.A. No. 11967 of 2013 and vide order dated 26.02.2014 in B.A. No. 567 of 2014, respectively. It is, then, submitted that the case of the petitioner is more or less similar to the aforesaid co -accused, hence, he may be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, Sri. Priyadarshi, learned Additional P.P. and Sri. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant have submitted that from the materials available on record, it is clear that a conspiracy hatched in the M.L.A. Guest -house at Ranchi for killing this petitioner and in pursuance of above conspiracy, the son of petitioner namely, Sarvajeet Kumar @ Sarvajeet Kumar Singh called the deceased from his house at Lalpur, Ranchi on some pretext and then deceased went with the petitioner. Latter on, he was killed by the petitioner. It is submitted that co -accused Sarvajeet Kumar @ Sarvajeet Kumar Singh moved this Court for grant of bail, which was rejected by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.4.2014 in B.A. No. 2350 of 2014. It is further submitted that so far co -accused namely, Sujeet Choudhary and Sanjay Pathak is concerned, there is no allegation against them that they inflicted any injury on the deceased. On the other hand, there is direct allegation against this petitioner that he inflicted fire arm injury on the deceased. Thus, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
(3.) HAVING heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of statement of Anup Singh, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., who was the bodyguard of the petitioner, I find that the deceased Kunal was called by the son of the petitioner and thereafter, he went with the petitioner and in the way he has been killed at Kutumba in the district Aurangabad (Bihar). Thus, prima -facie, I find that petitioner is the main assailant of the deceased. So far other two co -accused namely, Sujeet Choudhary and Sanjay Pathak are concerned, they are not the assailants.;