IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38333 of 2009 MANOJ KUMAR BHAGAT @ BHUSHAKI BHAGAT, son of late Ram @ Ramjee Bhagat, resident of village Babhangama, P.S. Kharik, District Bhagalpur Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.38895 of 2009 PRADEEP RAVIDAS, son of Ram Nagina Ravidas, of village Lathipur, P.S. Bihpur, District Bhagalpur Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 4.3.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State in both the cases. The two petitioners seeking anticipatory bail pertaining to an offence u/s 307/34 and its allied offences of the Indian Penal Code as well as section 27 of the Arms Act have their straightforward defence that neither they were named in the F.I.R. nor any material has been collected till date so as to show their complicity in any manner in the alleged offence. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has in this regard drawn attention of this Court towards the version of the informant in the F.I.R. as also to paragraph 34 of the case diary containing the statement of Pramukh, the injured person and on that basis it is sought to be contended that first of all if 2 the petitioners were in any way involved in the alleged assault they being well known to the informant and the injured could not have remained unnamed in the F.I.R. It has also been impressed that the injured being the Pramukh and well aware of identification of the two petitioners he could not have spared them as their assailant if there was anything to show that they had assaulted him. While it would be premature to give any finding on the aforementioned submissions but this much has to be recorded that there were only two persons i.e. the who could have identified the petitioners of having played any role i.e. informant or the injured. The informant has not named the petitioners and whatever has been stated by the injured Pramukh in paragraph 34 against them also remains in the realm of suspicion confined to the aspect that since the petitioner Pradeep Ravidas had come to his house alongwith a man with long hairs and this man having long hairs ultimately turned out to be the person who had caused gun shot injury on the his person, i.e. the injured 3 Pramukh, there would be also complicity of the petitioner Pradeep Ravidas in the alleged occurrence. As a matter of fact counsel for the petitioner Manoj Kumar Bhagat has also drawn attention of this Court that even when the injured had said nothing about the said petitioner, in his statement and he again had equated the case of the petitioner Pradeep Ravidas with Manoj Kumar Bhagat to be merely the forerunner to the occurrence. Considering the aforementioned aspects and especially the fact that the injured was non-else but a Pramukh and that his statement in paragraph 34 does not even remotely or indirectly involve them in any manner barring a lurking suspicion, and also the fact that they have no criminal antecedent as specifically asserted by them in paragraphs 8 and 15 of their respective bail petitions, this Court would direct for release of the abovenamed two petitioners on bail in the event they would surrender within a period of four weeks from today on their furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) each with two sureties of 4 Surendra/ the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.C.J.M., Naugachhiya in Kharik P.S.Case No. 86/2009, subject to the conditions as laid down u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)