IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1904 of 2010 BUDHAI RAM S/O LATE JAGDEO RAM Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 18.3.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. In the first information report the informant stated that he came to know from the witnesses present at the place of occurrence that his brother had been shot dead by the present petitioner and one Pundeo Yadav. During investigation some witnesses have been examined in the case diary, who supported the fact that the petitioner had also fired at the deceased. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is rejected. Perused the explanation of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah. I am not at all satisfied with the explanation since it appears that he has not even cared to look into the details of the case which I am enumerating below for his better understanding. The learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah stated that “there is direct allegation against the petitioner of committing murder”, but had he read the first information report closely he would have appreciated that the - 2 - informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence and he stated that he came to know that the petitioner and the co-accused had shot dead the deceased. Under no circumstances could this be termed as a direct allegation against the petitioner since it was hearsay and the direct material would transpire only in the case diary in the statement of witness examined u/s.161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it was extremely important for him to have discussed the materials in the case diary as narrated by the eye witnesses before recording that there was direct allegation against the petitioner. Moreover, I do not find any mention of the fact that charges have already been framed against the present petitioner in the impugned order which is mentioned in the explanation and had he mentioned the same it would be enabled this court to know the present stage of trial. Also, I do not understand how the fact that charges have been framed precludes a Judicial Officer from discussing the materials available against the petitioner in the case diary while disposing off a bail application which concerns the liberty of a person and from henceforth the Officer concerned is directed to act with more responsibility and sensitivity towards his judicial work. Let the order be communicated to the District and Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah for the needful. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )