IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17088 of 2009 BADRI YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 06.08.2009 Heard counsel for the parties The petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail in a case instituted under sections 302 and 120B/34 IPC. including section 27 of the Arms Act. According to the FIR the two deceaseds were taken out of the house by the two accused persons and as soon as they reached near a well in the periphery of the village it is stated that the petitioner and others who had assembled their from before, assaulted the deceased with fire-arms. So far as this petitioner is concerned, he along with one Santosh Yadav fired at the deceaseds hitting them. The informant claims to be an eye-witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the informant has not supported the prosecution case in toto. This Court finds from her (mother) statement that she has, in fact, narrated the incident that had taken place a day before the occurrence. Learned counsel also contends that the police initially did not send up the petitioner and others for trial, but the court differing with the report, has taken cognizance of the offence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail - 2 - is, therefore, rejected. However, if there is undue delay in taking up the trial, the petitioner shall have liberty to move for bail. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )