IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17898 of 2010 CHANDAN SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 8 13.9.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. The petitioner is an accused in a case under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. It is alleged by the informant Birendra Rai that on the alleged date of occurrence when he was talking with one Anil Rai @ Pattu Rai at his wine shop, his brother Deo Kumar Rai, Surendra Rai and Raj Banshi Rai came there and sat in front of his shop. Thereafter the miscreants came to his wine shop on three motor cycles and accused Sushil Singh and Chandan Singh, the petitioner, fired shot which hit on the head and neck of his brother, as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries. It is alleged by the informant that due to previous enmity the accused persons killed his brother. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case was subsequently handed over to C.I.D which after full enquiry and investigation, opined that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the instant case. It has further been stated in the report that the F.I.R. named witnesses namely Surendra Rai, Birendra Rai, Rajbanshi Rai were not present at the time of occurrence, rather they came subsequently at the hospital. He further submits that the statement of various witnesses which were recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., do not support the prosecution case. He further submits that one of the injured Rakesh 2 KHAN Tiwary stated that the accused persons were three in numbers and they came with one motor cycle. This contradicts the prosecution case that miscreants had come on three motor cycles and were in eight in numbers. The petitioner also refers to the report of the A.D.G.(Petitioner). Muzaffarpur Zone, contained in Annexure-4, wherein he opined that the allegation against the petitioner and other accused persons seems to be doubtful. However, he directed for completion of the investigation on certain points. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the police after investigation submitted charge sheet on 26.6.2010 and the bail application of one of the accused namely Sushil Singh has been rejected by a bench of this court by order dated 18.5.2010 passed in Cr.Misc.no.16344 of 2010. It appears that the F.I.R. named witnesses have supported the prosecution case, whereas some of the independent witnesses and the injured witness have not supported the prosecution case. The injured witness stated that four unknown persons were involved in the murder. The C.I.D. and the A.D.G.(P)., Muzaffarpur Zone have doubted the accusation of the petitioners in the instant case. However, the prayer for bail of one of the accused similarly placed namely Sushil Singh has been rejected by a bench of this court. The petitioner is in custody only since 6.4.2010. As such, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. The trial would be expedited, as cognizance has already been taken. (S.P.Singh,J) 3