IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41093 of 2009 RATAN SINGH S/o Shri Pukar Singh, resident of village-Nariyar, P. S. Saharsa, Distt- Saharsa…… Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 2. 01.12.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for the informant. The petitioner faces prosecution for offence under Section 307 IPC along with section 27 of the Arms Act. Though the petitioner was not named in the first information report, such allegation of his causing firearm injury on the person of the injured had transpired after 34 days of the occurrence by getting the injured himself produced before the police and naming the petitioner to be one of the persons causing firearm injury. Mr. B. P. Pandey, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that a large number of independent witnesses including the father of the informant was already examined in the span of 34 days prior to the name of the petitioner transpiring at the instance of the injured or his parents but none had even remotely suggested any role 2 played by the petitioner and therefore it would be clear that there was rivalry between the agnates on account of which the petitioner has been implicated. Counsel for the informant on the other hand has placed reliance on statement in paragraph 49 of the case-diary to suggest that not only the true version, though belatedly, was reported to the police by the injured himself but even now there is apprehension on the life and property of the informant, his son and his wife inasmuch as the petitioner and his brothers are still threatening them to do away with their lives. One thing however is clear that the allegation against the petitioner of causing firearm injury comes after 34 days and there is no explanation for such an unexplained delay inasmuch as it has not been even claimed by the prosecution that the injured was in the state of shock or was not capable of giving his statement before the police. Added to it, when the entire prosecution party including the father of the informant and other independent villagers 3 were examined in the span of aforesaid 34 days and they had not even named the petitioner to be present over there must less to have played role, this court would be satisfied that the implication of the petitioner in this case is out of family grudge and in fact injured seems to have sustained such firearm injury in a melee of barat. However, any definite conclusion arrived at this stage would be wholly premature at this stage inasmuch as the said issue has to be still gone into at the time of trial. One thing however is clear that even though the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, he and his family members are not expected to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Considering the aforementioned aspects, this court would direct for release of the petitioner namely Ratan Singh on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of CJM, Saharsa in connection with Saharsa Sadar P. S. Case No. 309/09. 4 It is however made clear that if the petitioner or his family members are found to be indulging themselves in any pressure tactic/ threatening the prosecution witness including the informant, his wife and the injured, the court below on being satisfied about such allegation would be at liberty to cancel the present bail of the petitioner. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)