IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No. 26277 of 2010 PARSHU @ PARSHURAM YADAV, son of Biro Yadav Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr. Misc. No. 30325 of 2010 RAJESHWAR SOUREN son of late Manik Souren Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 29.10.2010 Since both the applications have arisen out of one and the same police case, they are being heard together. The informant Kuldip Yadav stated that on 20.03.2010, he along with his elder brother Prayag Yadav, Kartik Yadav, Jhaksu Yadav, Manoj Pandey and Baleshwar Yadav had gone to Banka Civil Court to attend to Bounsi P.S. case no. 152 of 2007. After attending court work Prayag Yadav and others were returning by Marshal vehicle. The informant and his younger brother Samundra Yadav, were returning on a separate motorcycle. They met at Bounsi. Prayag Yadav was having his licensee rifle. Samundar Yadav had also his double barrel gun in his vehicle. The informant and his brother Samundar Yadav were following Prayag Yadav, who was traveling on the Marshal Jeep. As they had crossed village Kolhadih Bheljor, 20-21 miscreants intercepted the Marshal Jeep by throwing bicycle in front of it. The accused persons soon thereafter hurled bombs and made indiscriminate firing. In the process, the vehicle of Prayag Yadav turned turtle on the left side of the road. The miscreants continued firing unabated and threw bombs on the vehicle. Subsequently, the vehicle caught fire and all the accused persons perished in the vehicle itself. 2 Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for petitioner Parsuram Yadav, submits that the manner of occurrence narrated in the prosecution case is full of doubts. He further submits that as per the prosecution case, the informant heard the accused persons conveying on their Mobile that Prayag Yadav has been killed. The aforesaid circumstance show that the accused persons were in close vicinity of the informant. He further submits that in such situation it is very improbable that accused persons would allow the eye witness to go safely, later on to depose against them. He further submits that the informant in one breath has identified 15 persons with their parentage and villages, though they are of different areas. Mr. Vivekanand Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner Rajeshwar Souren, submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, as he had filed a criminal case being Bounsi P.S. case no. 42 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the SC/ST Act against the informant itself. He further submits that for the same occurrence a complaint has been filed by Dinesh Yadav, brother of Kuldip Yadav, who did not name him. He also adopted other arguments made on behalf of the Parsuram Yadav. Mr. N.K.Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of informant and learned counsel for State opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that it would not be very uncommon for a person to identify the people of nearby villages. They submit 3 that at this stage, it cannot be pinpointed the distance from which the informant heard the accused persons talking to the other persons. They further submit that the informant and his brother Samundar Yadav have identified the accused persons opening firing at Prayag Yadav and his companion, who were sitting in the Marshal jeep. It is true that there is no specific statement as to which persons were armed with what weapons, but nevertheless all of them are alleged to have resorted to firing and throwing bombs. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Their prayer for bail is rejected for the present. The petitioner Parshu @ Parshuram Yadav (Cr. Misc. No. 26277 of 2010) may renew his prayer for bail after one year. As petitioner Rajeshwar Souren (Cr. Misc. No. 30325 of 2010) had filed a case against the informant earlier, this court observes that he may renew his prayer for bail after eight months. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)