IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38535 of 2009 1. CHUNNU MANJHI son of Aklu Manjhi. 2. Mishri Manjhi son of Bhutali Manjhi Both are resident of village- Nepura, P. S. Silao District Nalanda. …. Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 2. 12.11.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The petitioners are accused for offence under Sections 307/436 and other allied sections of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that petitioners along with five others have indiscriminately assaulted the informant causing several injuries on his person by Lathi, Danda etc. and thereafter they had also put the house of the informant on fire as well as caused even damage to the other properties kept in and around the house. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that such incident had taken place at the spur of moment inasmuch as the prosecution party is well known to the petitioners and other accused persons and it was in course of watching a C.D. that some altercation had taken place which gave rise 2 to the aforementioned incident. This court upon considering the injury report would find that the informant sustained a number of injuries on his person mainly on head, face, eyes as his also nose. The six injuries which were found by the doctor on the injured informant cannot be attributed to a sudden provocation unless there was a premeditation to assault the informant. One can understand that an incident of this nature on a spur of moment of excitement could have been placed if A had assaulted B but then if several persons have brutally assaulted the informant, that cannot be said to be an overtact without premeditation. That apart, the fact that the allegation against the petitioners also expands and ranges by not only removing the valuable from the house but also putting the house on fire, which also has been found to be fully substantiated by the police in course of investigation, would be sufficient to show that the informant had not given a false version of the incident. The petitioners are in custody since 7/13.8.2009 and it is said that petitioner 3 no. 2 has got no criminal antecedent. In that view of the matter, petitioner no. 2 may renew his prayer for bail after completing six months of his judicial custody whereas petitioner no. 1 who has also got criminal antecedent may do so after completing one year of his judicial custody. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)