IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11028 of 2009 MD.ANWAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 06/05/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is in custody in a police case under Sections-302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 337, 338 and 448 of I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. The allegations are of his being a member of a mob of approximately 39 persons who indulged in indiscriminate firing leading to three dead and six injured. The prayer for bail has been rejected on four occasions earlier on merits. On another occasion he was granted provisional bail to enable him to appear at an examination. Renewing the prayer for bail learned counsel submits that co-accused Md. Gaffar @ Md. Abdul Gaffar Mian has been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.23339/08 on 22.8.2008. He is also alleged to have fired at another person who is stated to have deceased. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the co-accused granted bail was not the sole assailant 2 but he had fired at a deceased after he had been attacked by another. Co-accused has been granted bail in Cr. Misc. No.23339/08 after hearing the informant. This Court is not persuaded on the fine distinction sought to be made between the case of the petitioner and that of Md. Gaffar Mian to reject the prayer for bail. On the last occasion when the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on 17.9.2008 it was submitted that the petitioner could not place the order passed in Cr. Misc. No.23339/08 before this Court. This Court is conscious of the fact that it has rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner on several occasions. Simultaneously, this Court is of the firm view that a litigant perceives this Court as an institution. Different Judges cannot constitute different courts or different institutions. If an accused in the same transaction and who is also stated to have fired leading to death as the present petitioner has been granted bail and that too after hearing the informant, the fine distinction sought to be made on behalf of the informant that the co- accused granted bail had assaulted the deceased after he had been assaulted by another, shall not be sufficient ground to reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner. This Court is satisfied that simply on the principles of 3 consistency in the orders of this Court the petitioner is entitled to bail. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named be enlarged on bail upon furnishing the bail-bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) along with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Addl. Sessions Judge, First, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Sessions Trial No.413/06 arising out of Adapur (Harpur) P.S. Case No.135/05. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)