IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26282 of 2008 AHMAD HUSSAIN ENGINEER, Son of Late Sheikh Nazeer, resident of village-Mirzapur, P.S. Forbesgang (Simraha), District- Araria. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 22.10.2008 The F.I.R. was lodged under Section 302 and other Sections of the Indian penal code as well as 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act by the informant, the brother of the deceased who stated that it was the day of Gram Panchayat election and while he was sitting at his Darwaja, the petitioner and four other F.I.R. named as well as 15-20 unknown persons came there and that the petitioner threw a bomb causing explosion, as a result of which his (informant’s) brother Devanand Mehta as well as Mahanand Mehta received injuries and the deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.6.2008. Further submission is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to election rivalry for petitioner’s brother Aarif was also a contesting candidate for the post of Mukhiya. The learned counsel continues to submit that the informant names the petitioner in the F.I.R. as an assailant but in his further statement recorded by the I.O. at para-208 of the case diary the informant has stated that hearing the sound of explosion of bomb he had gone to the spot and had found the deceased in pool of blood and the deceased had injuries at the spot and that the informant has also stated that there was assembly of several voters and stampede was caused and somebody from the mole had thrown the bomb due to which the injuries was caused to the injured. The leaned counsel says - 2 - the informant has also stated that in his further statement that he had not seen the assailant who had thrown the bomb causing injury to the deceased. Referring the aforesaid statement of the informant, the learned counsel submits that informant’s gives is a go-by to his statement in the F.I.R. and has also stated in his further statement that in the F.I.R. he had named the petitioner as an assailant out of anger. The learned counsel continues to submit that besides the informant there is no other witness in the case diary to say that it was the petitioner who had thrown the bomb causing injury to the deceased but the witnesses have given a general and omnibus statement that somebody out of crowd had thrown the bomb. Mr. Ajay Kumar, the learned A.P.P. does not dispute the above statements of witnesses as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No other material is pointed out by the learned A.P.P. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, Ahmad Hussain Engineer is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, in Forbesganj (Simraha) P.S. case No.128 of 2001. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-