IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35400 of 2009 LAXMI NARAYAN PRASAD YADAV son of Late Brija Roy, residents of village- Bheriyahi, P. S. Chiraiya, District East Champaran, Motihari…… Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 17.11.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for the informant. The allegation against the petitioner for offence under Section 307 and other allied sections of Indian Penal Code of causing injury on the person of the injured by a carbine stands not only duly supported by the statement of eye witnesses in paragraph 4, 7, 8, 9 11 and 13 in consonance with the FIR, but also from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory confirming the use of carbine. The submission of Mr. Chitranjan Sinha that since the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory failed to give exact time of use of carbine, the benefit of doubt should go to the petitioner specially when there was a previous enmity between the parties or that the petitioner M.L.A. could not have resort to firing when he was with guard and 15 to 20 supporters, is of desperation and must be rejected. Here is a case where the witness have - 2 - named the petitioner to have opened firing and there is corresponding injury which stands confirmed and corroborated from the injury report as well as report of Forensic Science Laboratory. The last submission of Mr. Sinha that carbine could not have caused only one injury as has been found on the person of injured is too technical argument at this stage of bail specially when it is found that there was not only one cartridge injury on the person of the deceased but also that two other cartridges of the incident in question were also sent for its being verified by the Police to forensic expert which would mean that one cartridge had hit the injured and other cartridges had scattered at the place of occurrence. In view of the fact that involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence is apparent on the face of record and the petitioner is in custody only since 30.8.2009 and there are also eight other criminal cases pending against him, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. However, the petitioner may renew his - 3 - prayer for bail after completing one year of his judicial custody. In fact, it would be ideal for the prosecution, as the petitioner would still be in custody for a period of next nine months that the trial of the petitioner itself would be taken out of turn and is concluded expeditiously in the aforesaid period. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)