IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55513 of 2007 PRAKASH YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 5.5.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is an accused in a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 and 447 of the Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case is that the informant and his father had gone to repair their pumping set. In the mean time all the six accused persons named in the F.I.R. came with fire arms and started ploughing the field by a tractor . The informant’s father objected which led to the accused persons chasing him and his son, the informant. They fled towards their house and it is alleged that six named accused persons indiscriminately fired on the deceased as a result of which he died. Krishna Kumar Yadav has been examined at para 8 and he has disclosed the name of this petitioner as one of the person who was also responsible for firing indiscriminately at the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the evidence of Krishna Kumar Yadav is concerned, it is unbelievable in view of the fact that Krishna Kumar Yadav is also one of the attesting witness in the F.I.R. and he would have disclosed the name of the petitioner Prakash Yadav if he had seen him at the time of the occurren ce. There are several other witnesses who have been examined at paras 14, 15, 16 and 31 of the case diary to support the occurrence to the extent that they say that the deceased was firing from his roof top 2 whereas the accused persons and Prakash Yadav were firing from the ground as a result of which the deceased received the injuries. This version of the occurrence cannot be disbelieved at this stage inasmuch as both the informant and these witnesses have said that firing took place which resulted in the death of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that since petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., he should be released on bail. It is further submitted that although the petitioner was accused in six cases, he has been acquitted in five of them vide Annexure 2 series. The present case is of the year, 1999 and the petitioner was taken into custody on 7.2.2007. Considering the aforesaid facts I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. This bail petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)