IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41815 of 2008 PUNDEO YADAV … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Rana Bikram Singh For the State: Shri R.S.Chaudhary, APP ----------- 3. 14.11.2008 Heard. The third attempt is for bail. The earlier two attempts resulted in passing orders in Cr. Misc. Nos. 45292 of 2007 and 25904 of 2008 in which the petitioner could not get favourable order. The contention is that the petitioner is, of course, named in the F.I.R. but the informant is not the eye witness and he appears naming the petitioner along with 4-5 others who had killed his brother. The informant further stated that the reason for commission of the murder was that the accused persons wanted the deceased to join Male group of terrorists. The contention further is that during the course of investigation it came out that the informant learnt about the incident from one Khaderi Yadav who told the above facts to many persons including the informant as indicated by paragraphs 6,7,9 2 and 11 of the case diary but said Khaderi Yadav was examined as P.W. 1 in the trial and turned hostile without supporting the word of the prosecution version. The contention is that the petitioner was himself aggrieved with Male activists and had filed a case, vide Annexure -3 against them. Turn of events could not remain fixed as appears the passage of time. The case filed by the petitioner was in the year 2002 and the present case was registered two years after in 2004. How could one change the ideology of others including that of the petitioner. As regards the informant is not an eye witness and he learnt about the incident from Khaderi Yadav who turned hostile and in that view non-support from Khaderi Yadav appears of no consequence. The informant has yet to be examined. Let him be examined in the case whereafter this Court could reexamine the petition. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)