IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39795 of 2009 SONU MIAN @ SANOUBAR MIAN son of Matin Mian @ Matin Khan, resident of Khalasi Mohalla, Jhajha, P.S. Jhajha, District-Jamui. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 18/11/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused for the offence under sections 302/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 27 of the Arms Act. It is alleged that it was fatal gun shot injury of the petitioner which caused the instant death of the deceased at the spot. Counsel for the petitioner initially prayed to call for the case diary but this Court having found its detailed reference in the impugned order passed by the court below while rejecting the prayer of bail of the petitioner is not persuaded to delve into same exercise once again specially when the findings in the well considered manner has also not been assailed in the bail application to be vitiated by any error of record. Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that even when the so called eye witnesses have said only about causing only one gun shot injury by the petitioner, the doctor conducting the postmortem has found four such injuries caused by gun on the person of the deceased which would by itself go to put a question mark on the alleged version of the victim girl. In the opinion of this Court, once the eye witnesses named by the Informant have consistently supported 2 the allegation of causing gun shot injury by the petitioner which stands corroborated also from the postmortem report the same cannot be altogether brushed aside only on account of number of such gun shot injuries on the person of deceased. As a matter of fact the informant never claimed to be eye witness to the occurrence who had seen only the petitioner with a gun running away from the place of occurrence and it is in subsequent statement of other eye witnesses, namely, Rasmi Kumari and her mother Hemlata Devi, who were present in the house i.e, the place of occurrence who had deposed as eye witnesses wherein petitioner has been assigned the role of main assailant. The petitioner in fact has also chequered past of having criminal antecedent being accused in four more criminal cases. Considering the aforementioned aspect, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected with an observation that his trial may be expedited. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)