IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.20289 of 2011 ============================================= Uday Sao @ Ghenchkatwa .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ============================================= 3 17-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. There is no eye witness of the case but witnesses are there to state that a group of seven persons on three motorcycles went towards place of occurrence (where dead body was found lying). Thereafter, firing of shots were heard and dead body was found. Of seven persons, petitioner and one Mahesh Sao are also named. Mahesh Sao was in jail custody has been made a ground for disbelieving the statement collected in paragraphs no. 11 and 12 of the case diary but another evidence is that one of the motorcycles standing in name of co-accused, Satish Kumar who was also among seven was recovered which stopped due to mechanically defect, while was returning from the direction where they had gone. So, total statements of these witnesses cannot be doubted, that can be doubted for Mahesh Sao only. Distance is only one kilometer from the place where witnesses were remaining may also not be doubted for involvement of the petitioner and others. There is difference in between suspicion and circumstance. Circumstance discussed above is not justifying bail to this petitioner even considering his custody since 18.12.2010. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is rejected. However, Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. Shailendra Bhushan Prasad/- (Mandhata Singh, J.)