IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1222 of 2011 RAJEEV PRATAP VERMA @ BABLU Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 24.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional P.P. for the State. Petitioner seeks his bail in connection with Siwan Town P.S. Case No.84 of 2010 registered under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. It would appear from perusal of the FIR that on 12.5.2010 a quarrel had taken place between son of the informant and the petitioner and on 13.5.2010 when informant went to the house of petitioner, and while he was making complain about the above stated incident, petitioner along with other FIR named accused persons being armed with firearms came there and petitioner opened fire of his rifle, as a result of which informant’s son sustained firearm injury on his chest, and subsequently, the informant’s son died in course of his treatment. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution 2 party attacked the house of petitioner having armed with lethal weapons and being apprehended with the aforesaid attack the petitioner made fire in his self-defence without aiming any person and, therefore, the present case comes under the category of Section 304 of the I.P.C., and no case under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is made out. He further submits that the petitioner exercised his private defence so he cannot be prosecuted for the above stated offence. He further points out that in course of investigation,the informant changed his Fardbeyan and stated a different story in respect of the above stated occurrence. Although, a very elaborate argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner but I am not, at all, convinced with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is said to be main assailant, and, thereafter, I am not inclined to release him on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. PN ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)