IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11241 of 2010 JITENDRA YADAV @ JITENDRA TAGORE Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 6.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the informant and the State. Difference in between the parties was during execution of an scheme with different allegations as a counter case is also there in which one Sanjay Yadav is killed. In the instant case, petitioner has specifically been alleged for firing shot which hit Ramjivan Yadav on his chest, found fatal that is doubted on the ground of counter version in Atri P.S. Case No. 38 of 2005 and no corroboration of the allegation. Counsel for the informant is there to assist the State counsel. Carbon copy of the case diary of Atri P.S. Case Nos. 38 and 40 of 2005 from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya is called for and counsel from both sides have photostat copies of original case diary. Its serial number and paragraphs differ with carbon copy of the case diary for which a direction is made to the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya to call for carbon copy of the case diary, compare it with original 2 one, if some mischief is committed then order for filing an F.I.R. for the same otherwise further allegation of firing by the petitioner is doubted that at earlier part of F.I.R. an omnibus allegation is made that all the accused persons surrounded and shot firing which only later is specified, may never be a case to doubt the allegation. Further it appears some misdeed committed in the case in changing certain pages of the said case diary. In supervision though petitioner has been exonerated from the liability but the case has been found true so in any case, allegation leveled in the case though corroborated by the informant only, under discussed circumstance, never justifies petitioner to anticipatory bail. Hence, prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of petitioner is rejected. AI ( Mandhata Singh, J.)