IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36415 of 2009 JAMIL son of Mojibur Rahman, resident of village Bairgachhi, P.S. Baisi, District Purnea and others… …Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR… ..OPPOSITE PARTY For Petitioner No. 1: M/s Pankaj Kumar Sinha and Dinakar Sinha, Advocates For the State : Mr. R.P.S. Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 3 24.11.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioners files a supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioners. Let it be kept on the record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1and the State. Petitioner no. 1 is an accused in a case registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 that the occurrence is of 17.04.2007, but even the U.D. case had been lodged after ten days and the explanation is that the injured, who died subsequently, was treated in different hospitals including Hill View Nursing Home at Silliguri. It is stated that thereafter on 22.05.2007 a complaint case had been filed making the allegation against this petitioner and others of assaulting the 2 deceased. Other petitioners have already been granted bail in this case. It is stated that in the U.D. case the names of the assailants have not been disclosed. Further submission is that during the course of investigation different persons have given different versions with regard to the assault upon the deceased. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the explanation of delay has been given in the complaint case itself, as the deceased was being treated all along and with regard to the occurrence U.D. Case No. 31/07 was lodged, wherein it had been stated that due to the scuffle between the parties injuries had been received by the deceased. However, no first information report had been registered. The complainant had stated that when no investigation was being done, as he was under the impression that police case had been lodged, ultimately, he had to file the complaint case, which was later on sent to the police for investigation. It is further submitted that there is direct allegation against petitioner no. 1 of assaulting the deceased causing head injury, due to which he died subsequently. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since 3 there is direct allegation against petitioner no. 1 of assaulting the deceased causing head injury to him, due to which he died subsequently, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioner no. 1 on bail for the present. The bail prayer made on behalf of petitioner no. 1 is hereby rejected at this stage. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)