IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12329 of 2010 HIRA MIAN @ HIRA KHAN @ JULFIKAR ALI Versus STATE OF BIHAR --------------- 3. 13-07-2010 Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner, nor the petitioner had any enmity with the deceased, rather the materials have come during the investigation that petitioner used to forbade the deceased from indulging into sale and purchase of smacks. Learned counsel for the state however, submits that only witness to the occurrence is Chaukidar, who claims to identify the accused. Sanjay Kumar and Suraj Kumar got their statements recorded in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the case diary and the statements recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. itself reflect that prior to the occurrence petitioner along with one Pradeep Chaudhary threatened the victim. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded after 12 days of the occurrence in order to involve the petitioner in the offence. - 2 - Considering the submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, it appears that there is only circumstantial evidence against petitioner and petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but during investigation only suspicion has been raised, however, this may be a ground for consideration of regular bail by the learned court below, when petitioner surrenders and prays for his regular bail. Let learned court below may consider and dispose of the regular bail of the petitioner on the same day , if possible. With the above observation the application is disposed of. Sujit (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)