Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.30524 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Bindeshwar Yadav @ Bineshwar S/O Late Jai Ram Yadav Resident Of Village- Gosaingaon, Police Station- Ghoshwari, District- Patna .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... Opposite Party ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER 5 06-09-2012 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the informant and the State. This is a petition for grant of regular bail for offence under [STATUTE] and 27 of the Arms Act. There is allegation that four accused persons, including this petitioner, fired upon the deceased, however, there is assertion that along with them two more persons were there, but, there is no specific assertion of firing by them. The informant claimed to have seen the occurrence at about 04.00 a.m. in the month of July from the maize field concealing himself, eight injuries of five shots were found on the person of the deceased, injuries of three shots said to be communicating to each other having wound of entry and wound of exit and two shots having single injury of bullet. However, earlier prayer was made on the ground of parity as two accused persons, who have been granted bail having similar allegation, but, it was found that bail granted on misconception of fact that there is only two injuries on the person of deceased whereas, in fact, eight injuries by five shots. The learned counsel for the informant, however, contended that bail granted to two accused persons in view of the fact that there is two injuries is misconception of fact. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, not putting stress for bail on parity, but, make out fresh ground that the presence of the informant at the site of the occurrence is doubtful as no witnesses has stated his presence at the place of occurrence. It has, further, been contended that the possibility of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30524 of 2012 (5) dt.06-09-2012 2/2 seeing the occurrence by the informant at about 04.00 a.m. from a maize field appears to be improbable and none has named the presence of the informant at the site of occurrence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention to paragraphs 112 and 119 of the case diary where two persons have confessed their guilt in their inculpatory statements owning the responsibility of committing the crime. The learned counsel for the informant has asserted that in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the case diary the witnesses have also supported the prosecution case in the first information report by informant. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since there is specific allegation of firing that four persons fired causing death by five shots out of which three are communicating to each other, having entry and exit would and the fact that co-accused have been granted bail on misconception of fact, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The prayer for bail is rejected. However, the State or party, interested, may take step for cancellation of bail granted to co-accused on misconception of fact. SA/- (Gopal Prasad, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.