IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51492 of 2008 1. KUSHE YADAV, SON OF LATE MATHURI YADAV 2. MUKTI YADAV, SON OF MANJU YADAV 3. JAMUN YADAV, SON OF LATE BILUR YADAV 4. PRAMOD YADAV, SON OF LALIT YADAV 5. CHANDER YADAV, SON OF KUSHE YADAV 6. MAHESH YADAV, SON OF KUSHE YADAV 7. KAMAL YADAV, SON OF MUKTI YADAV 8. RAGHUNI YADAV, SON OF BIDESHWAR YADAV 9. BAUON YADAV, SON OF BIDESHWAR YADAV 10.YADU YADAV, SON OF BIDESHWAR YADAV 11.BIDESHWAR YADAV, SON OF MURLI YADAV 12.MURLI YADAV, SON OF BUCHHAR YADAV 13.SATRUGHAN YADAV, SON OF MEGHAN YADAV 14.GHOUTI YADAV, SON OF LATE MANOURI YADAV 15.KARI YADAV, SON OF LATE BACHHU YADAV 16.NEWAL YADAV, SON OF KARI YADAV 17.LALIT YADAV, SON OF LATE SAINI YADAV 18.UTTIAM YADAV, SON OF SAINI YADAV 19.FIRU YADAV, SON OF SAINI YADAV 20.JAY NARAYAN YADAV, SON OF MAOWN YADAV 21.SURYA NARAYAN YADAV, SON OF GHOLAI YADAV 22.CHUMMAN YADAV, SON OF THOLAI YADAV 23.SURESH YADAV, SON O YOGENDRA YADAV 24.YOGENDRA YADAV, SON OF ASHRAFI YADAV 25.INER YADAV, SON OF SUKHDEV YADAV 26.SHAILENDER YADAV, SON OF MULLI YADAV 27.JAGDISH YADAV, SON OF LATE KESHO YADAV 28.SUMAN YADAV, SON OF LATE KESHO YADAV 29.SUNDER YADAV, SON OF MUKTI YADAV 30.SURAT YADAV, SON OF MUKTI YADAV ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- JHAOUA, P.S. BHAIRAWSTHAN, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. ----- PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----- OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 2 17.8.2009 This application has been filed against the order dated 24.10.2008 whereby the Court has rejected the petition of the defence to bring on records a copy of a First Information Report which the defence claims to be true version of the actual occurrence. At the time of hearing the bail matter, there was an order by the Court that the original copy of the First Information 2 Report should be kept in sealed cover by order dated 27.8.1997. The petitioners’ bail at that stage was rejected and thereafter they applied for a certified copy of the First Information Report and filed a bail application in this Court. Since the matter is very old, the records of this Court have been destroyed and as such the certified copy of the First Information Report is not available. The petitioners however, managed to obtain a photo copy of the certified copy of the First Information Report and on the basis of that photo copy pray that they should be permitted to exhibit the First Information Report and examine witnesses to show that the First Information Report has been tampered with. The Deputy Superintendent of Police to whom the original copy was returned from the Court below has shown his inability in produce the same on the ground that the original copy is lost. It is therefore submitted that the prosecution case is not based on the actual First Information Report, and the First Information Report which has been produced during trial is different to the original which was in the safe 3 custody of the Court. The Court below has rightly rejected the application on the ground that the defence has not taken steps to examine the prosecution witnesses on this question and at this belated stage the defence cannot take a plea that the First Information Report produced is a tampered one. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to take a defence at any stage of the case and as such the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition of the petitioners. This Court finds that there is no anomaly in the reasons of the Court below in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners. However, it is always be open for defence to examine witnesses in support of their contention if so advised. This application is thus dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)