IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38840 of 2010 SOHAWAN PRASAD @ SOHAWAN MAHTO Versus STATE OF BIHAR --------- 03/ 06.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P.P. for the State. Petitioner seeks his bail in connection with Masaurhi P.S.Case no.123/2010 registered under section 302/34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. Petitioner is named in the first information report with direct allegation of committing murder of the deceased. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to convince me about innocence of the petitioner placing this plea that neither the informant nor any witness is eye witness of the alleged occurrence. To fortify her contention, she refers para 55 of the case diary in which the statement of Mukesh Kumar who is said to be egg vendor has been recorded and the said witness has stated that some unknown persons, concealing their identity, came at his shop and committed murder of the deceased but I am not at all convinced with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner because learned P.P points out this fact that after the alleged occurrence petitioner was caught by the villagers at the spot. The post mortem report of the deceased also corroborates the allegation levelled against the petitioner as well as other accused as so many injuries are found on the person of the deceased. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as - 2 - submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J))