IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35809 of 2008 VIVEKA NAND SINGH @ VIVEKA SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 2.12.2008 Heard Mr. Farooq Ahmad Khan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Sharma, learned A.P.P. The police had the information that a vehicle(Jipsy) was carrying some prohibited arms and ammunitions and it was in occupation of some persons. A police party was on wait of the vehicle and the vehicle was signaled to stop by a constable. The constable was dashed by the vehicle in a attempt to run away with the vehicle. But the occupants could not succeed and started running away from the vehicle after abandoning it. On search, illegal arms and ammunitions were recovered. The contention is that other accused persons, who were similarly identified by the police party, have been admitted to bail either by this Court or by the court below itself. The contention further is that it could be a simple road accident and could not be an intentional act. This Court has other view on the matter and that could not be expressed in detail merely to allow the court below to take its own view in the matter. But it wants to mention that it may not be a case of simple rash and negligent driving. The rejection order indicates that it was the petitioner who was the master of the entire catch of arms. The petition is dismissed. - 2 - However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after the informant and all the seizure witnesses are examined. For examination of such witnesses the trial court should take appropriate steps at the very threshold. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )