Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 607 (PAT)

Ram Subodh Ray v. State Of Bihar

2005-07-18

CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD

body2005
Judgment 1. Despite several opportunities allowed to the petitioner, nobody has appeared on behalf of petitioner. 2. Mr. Chaubey Jawahar, learned A.P.P. appears on behalf of State. 3. This application has been filed for modification in concerned P.S. Case Number in the bail order dated 11th August, 2004 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19171 of 2004 whereby bail was granted to the petitioner Ram Subodh Ray on the ground that the petitioner was a member of the mob and that the specific attribution of firing the fatal shot was on co-accused Pramod Rai. In the aforesaid modification petition, petitioner has prayed for modifying the concerned P.S. Case Number i.e. Teghra P.S. Case No. 131 of 2002, as mentioned in the bail order to Teghra P.S. Case No. 134 of 2002. The said P.S. Case Number i.e. Teghra P.S. Case No. 131 of 2002 was mentioned in the order on the basis of the number, as mentioned in the prayer portion of the bail application of the petitioner. 4. After filing of the aforesaid modification petition, the petitioner was directed to file a fresh certified copy of the impugned bail rejection order of the learned Sessions Judge with correct P.S. Case Number but the petitioner did not file any another certified copy with correct P.S. Case Number, therefore, vide this Courts order dated 25.2.2005 a report was called for from the Sessions Judge, Begusarai on the matter whether the correct case number under his bail order dated 10th March, 2003 passed under B.R No. 300 of 2003 with respect to petitioner accused Ram Subodh Ray was Teghra PS. Case No. 131 of 2002 or Teghra P.S. Case No. 134 of 2002. 5. The report of the Sessions Judge, Begusarai was received under his letter no. 611 dated 12th April, 2005 at Flag-A and vide this Courts order dated 27th April, 2005 on the prayer of the A.P.P. case diary of the case was called for verification. The case diary has been received and is on record. It has to be mentioned that along-with the aforesaid report dated 12th April 2005 of the learned Sessions Judge, a photo copy of the impugned bail rejection order has also been received as enclosure with the letter. 6. The case diary has been received and is on record. It has to be mentioned that along-with the aforesaid report dated 12th April 2005 of the learned Sessions Judge, a photo copy of the impugned bail rejection order has also been received as enclosure with the letter. 6. In this modification petition, petitioner has prayed for modification or correction in the concerned P.S. Case Number, as prayed in his petition on the ground that due to the wrong mentioning of the P.S. Case Number in the bail order dated 11.2.2004 passed in the aforesaid Cr. Misc. No. 19171 of 2004, the petitioner has not been able to get released from custody hence, modification in the RS. Case Number has been prayed so that the petitioner-accused may be released from custody. 7. On considering the report of the Sessions Judge and the case diary received, it appears to be a planned case of conspiracy and forgery committed before a court of law for obtaining bail on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. 8. In the aforesaid Cr. Misc. No. 19171 of 2004 whereunder the petitioner was granted bail, certified photo copy of the F.I.R. and the impugned bail rejection order dated 10.3.2003 under B.P. No. 300 of 2003 of the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai was filed. The certified photo copy of F.I.R. mentions the name of co-accused Pramod Rai as the assailant who had killed the deceased by firing the fatal shot hitting the deceased on his head. In the certified copy of order dated 10.3.2003 passed in B.P. No. 300 of 2003 of the Sessions Judge it is mentioned-"According to the F.I.R., Pramod Rai was that accused whose pistol pumped bullet in the head of the deceased Munna Rai but the petitioner participated in the occurrence" and thus, the learned Sessions Judge refused the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was only a participant but the assailant who fired the pistol hitting the deceased on his head was co-accused Pramod Rai. 9. But on consideration of the report of the Sessions Judge, as received at Flatg-A and the case diary of the concerned case as received, the facts are like this that the petitioner-accused Ram Subhodh Ray is the assailant who had fired the fatal shot hitting the deceased on his head and thereby killing him on the spot. 9. But on consideration of the report of the Sessions Judge, as received at Flatg-A and the case diary of the concerned case as received, the facts are like this that the petitioner-accused Ram Subhodh Ray is the assailant who had fired the fatal shot hitting the deceased on his head and thereby killing him on the spot. The photo copy of the impugned bail rejection order of the learned Sessions Judge enclosed with his report under letter dated 12.4.2005 mentions- "According to the F.I.R., it was this petitioner whose pistol pumped bullet in the head of deceased Munna Rai". 10. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge rejected petitioners prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioner was the accused who had fired the fatal shot hitting the deceased on his head and thereby killed him there. The case diary which has been received mentions at Para-1 containing the copy of the fard beyan as recorded by the I.O. that accused Ram Subodh Ray i.e. the petitioner here had fired the pistol hitting the deceased on his head. Thus, the petitioner is the sole assailant who had killed the deceased by firing his pistol and hitting the deceased on his head. These facts are categorically shown in the photo copy of the bail rejection order as sent by the learned Sessions Judge alongwith his report under letter dated 12.4.2005 as well as the case diary received by this Court. 11. But on considering the certified copy of the F.I.R. and the impugned bail rejection order of the learned Sessions Judge, as has been filed under Cr. Misc. No. 19171 of 2004, the petitioner Ram Subodh Ray was simply a member of the mob and co-accused Pramod Rai was the assailant who had fired the pistol hitting the deceased on his head. During argument before this Court under the said Cr. Misc. No. 19171 of 2004 these facts were argued before this Court and considering the arguments based on the certified copy of the F.I.R. and the bail rejection order of the learned Sessions Judge, this Court vide its order dated 11.8.2004 had granted bail to the petitioner on the ground that he was simply a member of the mob and the assailant to the deceased was co-accused Pramod Rai. But as already mentioned above, the report of the Sessions Judge and the photo copy of the impugned bail rejection order received with the letter of the Sessions Judge and the case diary of this case, the actual position is that the petitioner is the assailant who had fired his pistol hitting the deceased on his head. Therefore, it appears that the bail order has been obtained under a well planned conspiracy and commission of forgery by filing forged documents before this Court of law and also making submissions on the basis of those forged documents. The forgery and conspiracy was committed and the petitioner was also able to get an order of bail but there always remains a mistake when any crime is committed which leads to the discovery of the commission of the offence. While filing the bail petition under aforesaid Cr. Misc. No. 19171 of 2004 the petitioner committed a mistake in mentioning the concerned P.S. Case Number in his bail application and, accordingly, a wrong P.S. Case Number was mentioned in the order of this Court whereby bail was granted and when the order was communicated to the triai court, the trial court, according to the petitioner himself as averred in the modification petition, refused to release the petitioner on the ground that the P.S. Case Number was not correct and he was directed to get the P.S. Case Number corrected. The petitioner still continued his efforts to make the conspiracy and forgery to his successful end but at this point of time the forgery has been detected. 12. Under the circumstances, when the bail order dated 11.8.2004 under the aforesaid Cr. Misc. No. 19171 of 2004 has been obtained by a well planned conspiracy and forgery committed by filing forged document, there is no question for any correction in the concerned P.S. Case Number, as prayed in the modification petition which has to be ought right rejected and it also requires that the bail order dated 11.8.2004 as allowed to the petitioner under Cr. Misc. No. 19171 of 2004 be immediately recalled. Accordingly, this bail order is recalled. 13. Misc. No. 19171 of 2004 be immediately recalled. Accordingly, this bail order is recalled. 13. Let a copy of this order be sent immediately to the trial court concerned for taking immediate steps so that the petitioner-accused Ram Subodh Ray, is not released from custody on the basis of this Courts order dated 11.8.2004 or if so released, for taking stringent coercive steps for apprehending this petitioner and remanding him to custody. 14. At the end, the Registrar General on obtaining orders of Hon ble the Chief Justice, is directed to institute a first information report against all the concerned persons who have been involved in the act committing forgery and making any other efforts in obtaining the bail order from this Court on the basis of such conspiracy and forgery. The Registrar General of this Court will also enquire into the matter as to how such certified copy of the impugned bail rejection order was granted by and obtained from the concerned Copying Department of the Judgeship concerned. 15. Thus, the modification petition stands dismissed with the directions as above.