IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30461 of 2009 DHANANJAY MANDAL, son of Late Sitaram Mandal, resident of Mohalla Sikandarpur, P. S. Mojahidpur, District- Bhagalpur… Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.40776 of 2009 SHANKAR YADAV @ Pandubvi @ Pandubiya son of late Kishan Yadav, resident of vill. Chandharydih, P. S. Lodipur, Distt. Bhagalpur … Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.30861 of 2009 MD.MASOOD ALAM @ DIMAND MIAN, son of Late Sajjad Hussain, resident of Kalia Rahmanpur, P. S. Mojahidpur, District Bhagalpur … Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 27.11.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioners in all these three cases as also counsel for the State. The three petitioners namely, Dhananjay Mandal, Shankar Yadav @ Pandubvi @ Pandubiya and Md. Masood Alam @ Dimand Mian along with four others including one Karu Shaw are facing allegation for offence under Section 302 and allied section of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners Dhananjay Mandal and Md. Masood Alam @ Dimand Mian would submit that the allegation of giving fatal injury is on Karu Saw and Shankar who are said to have opened 2 fire hitting the deceased resulting into his death at the spot. It is explained that the allegation against these two petitioners namely Dhananjay Mandal and Md. Masood Alam @ Dimand Mian who are said to have caught hold of the deceased who was being also subjected to simultaneous firearm injury by two other co-accused seems to be absurd and their such role has been merely introduced by prosecution to give a separate and more serious allegation than simply being members of unlawful assembly. Counsel for the petitioner would also submit that there was a previous enmity arising out of land dispute and therefore Dhananjay Mandal and Md. Masood Alam @ Dimand Mian have been implicated only on account of such grudge. This court would find that in post- mortem report there is only one firearm injury on the person of the deceased which is the cause of his death. In that view of the matter, the alleged presence of the aforesaid two petitioners at the time of occurrence would only make an omnibus allegation with no specific overtact inasmuch as the absence of blacken/charring firearm injury would support 3 their defence plea of the deceased being caused firearm injury from a distance which in turn would give a dent to the prosecution case of these two petitioners catching hold of the deceased in order to facilitate others to fire at him. Thus, they too being members of unlawful assembly would be entitled for bail but then as the petitioner, Masood Alam @ Dimand Mian has criminal antecedent, his prayer for bail is rejected for the present and he may renew his prayer for bail after completing one year of his judicial custody. So far petitioner, Dhananjay Mandal is concerned, he has no criminal antecedent and thus this court would direct for his being released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Bhagalpur in connection with Mojahidpur (Babarganj) P. S. Case No. 21 of 2009, subject to a condition that one of the bailors must be a close family member of the petitioner. Coming to the case of petitioner Shankar Yadav @ Pandubvi @ Pandubiya, this court would find that it would be too 4 technical and premature at this stage at least to appreciate as to whose firearm injury, whether one by Shankar Yadav or that of Karu Saw had led to instant death of deceased at the spot specially when the specific allegation of the petitioner and Karu firing on the deceased is corroborated from the fatal gunshot injury is the cause of the death of the deceased. The petitioner, Shankar Yadav is also said to have criminal antecedent. In that view of the matter, this court is not inclined to grant bail to Shankar Yadav @ Pandubvi @ Pandubiya only on the ground that such firearm injury could have been caused only by co-accused Karu Saw and consequently, the prayer for bail of Shankar Yadav @ Pandubvi @ Pandubiya is hereby rejected for the present. If the trial of the petitioner, Shankar Yadav @ Pandubvi @ Pandubiya and others is not concluded within a period of one and a half years from the date of receipt/production of this order, he will have liberty to initially move the trial court for bail and the trial court will be 5 under obligation to record reasons for not concluding the trial within the aforementioned period and only thereafter, the petitioner may move this court with a prayer for bail. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)