IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15188 of 2009 VAKIL RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 27.7.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1-b) A, 26, 27 of the Arms Act. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused persons named in the F.I.R. variously armed with lethal weapon had assembled behind the house of the informant where informant was digging pond. The daughter and son of the deceased went to protest/object, whereafter, at the orders of co-accused Mahamaya gopal, co-accused Ayodhya Sao, fired from his country-made pistol, hitting the deceased Yogesh Kumar. Further allegation is that present petitioner fired from his country-made Sten-gun which hit one of the deceased (brother of the informant) on his head. Learned counsel submits that there is counter version as well lodged by the daughter of one Ram Ayodhya Sah (deceased) of the counter case, wherein the present prosecution sides are accused. It is contended that no fire arm was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel further 2 submits that co-accused Mahamaya Gopal, has been granted privilege of bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 36885 of 2008 dated 18.11.2008. It is highlighted that Petitioner is in custody since 13.6.2008. On the contrary learned A.P.P. submits that going by the F.I.R. the petitioner is the assailant. Referring to the post-mortem report of deceased Ramesh, it has been contended that he received two injuries (entry wound on the head/skull). Learned A.P.P. therefore submits that the post-mortem report fully supports the allegation. Having regard to the submissions and the materials on record, this Court is convinced that the petitioner does not deserve to be release on bail. Prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. However, having regard to the facts that petitioner is in custody since 13.6.2008, this Court observes that if the trial of the case is not taken up within ten months from the date of receipt/communication of this order in the court below, petitioner shall have liberty to renew his prayer for bail. P.K. (K.K. Mandal, J.)