IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44007 of 2010 KRISHNA KUMAR @ KARU S/O BHAGWAN DAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.2033 of 2011 1. BHAGWAN DAS S/O LATE BAL GOVIND SAO 2. VINOD DAS S/O BHAGWAN DAS 3. ARUN KUMAR S/O BHAGWAN DAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 15.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the informant and the state. The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 341,302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. In the First Information Report there is a general allegation against all the accused persons of having fired at the deceased, which fact was supported by the deceased’s father also in statement recorded during investigation. The inquest report suggested recovery of five cartridges from the place of occurrence but the post examination report revealed a single injury having been sustained by the deceased. The rest of the witnesses who were examined during investigation did not disclose any names either as having seen them at the place of occurrence or having heard the names of the accused from the informant or the deceased’s 2 father. Some witnesses in paragraph 35 and 36 have speculated that since the business of the accused was not doing as well as that of the deceased they may have a bad feeling towards the deceased. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that even earlier an attempt had been made on the life of the deceased by some unknown persons but even then the petitioners were not suspected to be involved. Further submission is that during investigation when the place of occurrence was inspected a map was drawn and the Investigating Officer concluded that it was not possible for the informant or her father-in-law to have seen the occurrence. Learned counsel for the informant was unable to point out anything more than that was collected during investigation and has not been able to refute the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioners while opposing the prayer for bail. Considering the same, as also that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, let the petitioners above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/-(Five thousand) each 3 with two sureties of the like amount each or any other surety to be fixed by the court concerned to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in connection with Shakurabad P.S. Case No. 91/2010, subject to the conditions, (i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioners. The bailors will undertake to furnish information to the Court about any change in address of the petitioners. (ii) That the affidavit shall clearly state that the petitioners are not an accused in any other case and, if they are, they shall not be released on bail, (iii) That the bailors shall also state on affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioners are implicated in any other case of similar nature after their release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on ground of misuse, (iv) That the petitioners will give an undertaking that they will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if they fail to do so on two given dates and delays the trial in any manner, their bail will be liable to be 4 cancelled for reasons of misuse, (v) That the petitioners will be well represented on each date if they fail to do so on two consecutive dates, their bail will be liable to be cancelled. Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J.)