IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15603 of 2010 MURARI RAI SON OF LATE UMA NATH RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 7.7.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. In the first information report the allegation against the petitioner is that he shot at the deceased, due to which he died. It was specifically mentioned by the informant that the occurrence had taken place near Umesh Medical Hall and the owner of the shop namely Umesh Kumar Rai and others namely Ram Ishwar Rai, Binod Rai and Jitendra Rai of village Tanua had witnessed the occurrence. When the case diary was called for, it is found out that the statements of these four witnesses mentioned in the first information report have not been recorded till 22.5.2010 by S.I. Sudama Yadav of S.H.O. Chapra Mufassil P.S.,which in the opinion of this Court is a major lapse in investigation. Call for an explanation from Sudama Yadav of S.H.O. Chapra Mufassil P.S. through the Superintendent of Police, Chapra in this regard. Also let the Superintendent of Police, Chapra enquire into the matter and submit a report before this Court within three weeks from today. In view of the allegations leveled against the petitioner - 2 - in the first information report, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial. Post it under the heading “To be mentioned” on receipt of the said report. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )