IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23118 of 2008 NANDLAL MANDAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 5/8/2008 Heard Mrs. Kusumlata Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ahtasham Ali Khan, learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioner has been made accused in a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The F.I.R. is against unknown persons. However, as per submission, the petitioner was made accused subsequently during course of investigation. Allegation is that while returning from Sharadh Ceremony, somebody shot at Upender Mandal, son of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been made accused only on the basis of suspicion. There is no material collected during course of investigation which could show the complicity of the petitioner. Learned counsel further states that in paragraph-6 of the case diary, it has only been disclosed that son of Upendra Mandal, namely Suraj Mandal was accompanying him while returning from Sharadh Ceremony and earlier there had been some altercation and certain persons resorted to firing also. The informant was not sure about the fact, in his further statement, as to who actually fired, Ram Swaroop or Nandlal. She further - 2 - submits that statement of Suraj Mandal, son of Upender Mandal, recorded in paragraph No. 9 of the case diary, clearly discloses that he has seen Ram Swaroop Mandal firing at the deceased causing his death. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 31.3.2008. Learned counsel for the State submits that it is clear from paragraph-6 of the case diary that earlier there was altercation between the parties and certain persons, and they resorted to firing also. But he could not state as to whether any case has been lodged with regard to earlier occurrence or not. He further states that it has come in paragraph-6 of the case diary, which is further statement of the informant, that Nandlal Mandal has threatened Upender Mandal on earlier occasion. However, he could not deny the submissions on behalf of petitioner that there is no specific allegation of firing or any overt act by Nandlal Mandal upon the deceased rather he admits that in paragraph-9, it has been clearly stated by the son of the deceased that one Ram Swaroop Mandal has fired at the deceased. So far as the alleged threat given to the deceased by the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is surprising that though such threat allegedly was given by the petitioner but the same has not been mentioned in the First Information Report. - 3 - In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the parties, I direct the petitioner Nandlal Mandal to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia, in connection with Naugachia (Parbatta) P.S. Case No. 369 of 2007. S.Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)