IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39878 of 2009 Arvind Kumar Akela @ Arvind Akela, Son of Sundar Mandal, Resident of Village Maheshpur, Police Station Sanhaula, District Bhagalpur. --------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar -------- Opp. Party ----------- 2 23.11.2009 Heard Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner faces allegation for an offence under Section 307 and other allied offences of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is said that the petitioner while driving the motorcycle facilitated his accomplices to cause firm-arm injury on the informant one of which had hit him whereas the other one had escaped. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the main allegation is against one Sanjay Jaiswal and the petitioner at best can only be said to have given some assistance to him which in no event make him liable for the alleged offence because the petitioner had no reason to know that his accomplice Sanjay Jaiswal might 2 commit such an offence while riding on the motorcycle on the back seat being driven by the petitioner. Attractive that the aforesaid submission may be, the conduct of the petitioner of having criminal antecedent of being an accused in a number of criminal cases, out of which two of them are said to be for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code would not allow him to take a plea of his being either falsely implicated in this case or that he had never the reason to know about the said suspected behaviour of his accomplice Sanjay Jaiswal. It is the aforesaid background in which the petitioner has been made accused also in this case which really assumes importance. True it is that even the informant, a practicing lawyer, is said to have criminal antecedent but then the fact that the doctor has found fire-arm injury on the person of the informant allegedly caused by one Sanjay Jaiswal who was riding the motorcycle being driven by the petitioner would definitely make the petitioner liable for an offence under Section 307/34 of the 3 Indian Penal Code. Under such circumstances, this Court would not be inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, namely, Arvind Kumar Akela @ Arvind Akela for the present till he completes one year of his judicial custody and as the petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.7.2009, he may renew his such prayer for bail only on or after 29.7.2010. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)