IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9444 of 2011 Dharmpal Mehta @ Dharmpal Mahto, S/o Sri Harbansh Mehta. Versus The State of Bihar ----------- 03. 20.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was refused bail by order dated 29.06.2010 vide Cr.Misc. No. 17253 of 2010 on the ground that two witnesses who had been examined during investigation specifically stated that the petitioner had shot fire at one of the deceased as also supported the case in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The prayer has been renewed on the ground that the witnesses whose statements were recorded in paragraphs 31 and 32 and, therefore, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded for which entries in paragraphs 77 and 78 of the case diary have been examined during trial and they did not support the case of the prosecution. On a specific query by this Court as to whether there was any other witnesses stated that it was the petitioner who had fired at one of the deceased, no clear 2 reply was given. When this Court checked the case diary itself it is found that there were other witnesses who had alleged specifically against the petitioner having fired at one of the deceased. In view of such, I am not inclined to review the said order. The prayer for bail is once again rejected. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)