IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7007 of 2008 SIPAHI SAHANI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 21.07.2008 The case is under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The informant says that in the night of occurrence she (informant) along with her husband and son Pradeep (deceased) was sleeping in her Bathan. At about 2 P.M., criminals armed with weapons came there. The informant flashed torch light and identified the petitioner and other F.I.R. named accused. She further stated that the petitioner removed Chadar from the body of her son Pradeep (deceased) and then co-accused Ganga Sahani fired a shot on his (deceased’s) temple. Thereafter, the petitioner fired another shot on the deceased’s temple and then he (petitioner) said that the work had been finished. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide prosecution story two shots are said to have been fired on the temple of the deceased but the post mortem report shows that two injuries one being wound of entry and the other wound of exist on deceased’s temple caused by a single shot. The learned counsel submits that it is not sure that the petitioner’s shot had hit the deceased. Mr. S. R. Haque, the lerned A.P.P. refers to para-28 of the supervision note and says that the supervising authority did not believe the story of firing of the first shot by co-accused Ganga Sahani. Hence, on this basis, the learned A.P.P. advanced his - 2 - argument that this would lead to inference of complicity of the petitioner in the killing. The learned A.P.P. also says that in para-9 as well as in para-11 the informant in her further statement and another witness Chandan Ram have stated about the petitioner having fired shot on the temple of the deceased. Thus hearing and considering the petitioner’s complicity, I do not feel inclined to allow bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer is rejected. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-