IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21296 of 2009 RISHAV CHANDRA JAIN @ RISHABH CHANDRA JAIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04 20.8.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under Sections 302, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Informant who is the brother of the deceased is admittedly not an eye witness to the occurrence. As per F.I.R. the deceased along with other persons were indiscriminately fired at by the petitioner, his son and one another co-accused, causing his death. It is alleged therein that one of them namely Md. Neshar Anwar received injury and was referred to hospital for treatment. His brother Md. Sahwaj, however, succumb to the injuries at the place of occurrence. There is a counter version to the said case in the shape of Ara Town P.S. Case No. 64 of 2009, instituted by another son of the petitioner namely Sushant Kr. Jain. Allegation in the said case is that the deceased along with other co-accused had 2 arrived at the shop of the son of the petitioner they scuffled. Informant was assaulted and was being dragged out of the shop for the purpose of assault or kidnapping. On alarm, the petitioner being father resorted to blank firings. The informant has tried to explain the manner in which the deceased received the bullet injuries. Learned counsel states that the Post- mortem report indicates that the deceased received only three injuries. It is next contended that the motive as alleged is not sustainable as nobody has produced the alleged power of attorney executed in favour of the deceased by another co-accused namely Jiwesh Chandra Jain. It is further contended that the witnesses are divergent, so far as the manner of occurrence is concerned. Learned counsel further draws attention of the Court to the order dated 18.5.2009 passed by the court below in B.P. No. 644 of 2009 whereby the son of the petitioner against whom the allegation(s) are somewhat identical has been set at liberty after recording reasons therefor. This Court perused the reasons. The copy of the order is handed in which is placed on record marked as ‘X’. After perusal the said order it appears that the Police doubted his 3 implication in the case. It is next contended that another co-accused namely Guletan Singh has also been granted bail by the court below. Counsel further states that the case lodged by the son of the petitioner has also been found to be true by the I.O. as well as the superior Police Officers but the charge-sheet has not been submitted in the said case as some of the accused(s) are evading arrest. Learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail. It is contended that the petitioner seems to be the main accused. Referring to several statements made in the case diary particularly that of Md. Chuku, It has been contended that the petitioner has been found to be grossly involved in the occurrence. This Court upon hearing both sides and after perusal of the material on record gets an impression that there is two version of the case. Some of the witnesses including the injured are divergent, in so far as the manner of occurrence is concerned. The place of occurrence is admittedly the shop of the petitioner. The petitioner holds a weapon and license therefor. Both the parties appeared to be on loggers head from before. Earlier 4 to this petitions/ complaint were filed by both the parties. Considering the fact that there are two versions of the case which have been found true and the counter version explains the manner in which the deceased received injury, as also the fact that some other co-accuseds of this case have been granted privilege of bail directs his release on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Ara Town P.S. Case No. 63 of 2009 subject to condition that one of the bailors should be the close/own family members of the petitioner. This Court at this stage can only observe that if the petitioner is subsequently found to have indulged in identical offence, the trial court shall consider suo motu cancellation of his bail bonds on that ground alone. P.K. (K.K. Mandal, J.)