IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.44124 of 2010 Badri Narayan Tewary Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors For the petitioner: Mr.Manohar Prasad Singh,Advocate. For the State: Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ---------------------------------- 4 22.12.2011 Surprisingly, at two different occasions there happens to be two different orders by two different courts which ultimately led filing of the present petition. The brief facts of the case as is evident from self recorded statement on 30.1.2008 of S. I., Bal Krishna Rai alleging, inter alia, that while he was on patrolling, he received rumour over causing death at Lallu Singh Hata while there was marriage procession. Accordingly, rushed on the spot and as pointed out, opened a room where from two persons having licensee rifle cartridges in their possession along with others were apprehended. The investigation was, accordingly, taken up, concluded by having submission of charge sheet and the matter is still pending for trial. During midst thereof, one Sheo Narain Rai prayed for releasing of his rifle which was refused by the learned lower court against which Cri. Revision No.35 of 2009 was filed and the same was allowed vide order dated 19.12.2009 passed in Cr.Revision No.35 of 2009. In likewise manner petitioner has also prayed for release of his rifle but the same has been rejected by the learned lower court as well as by the revisional court under Cri.Revision No.80 of 2009 against which instant petition has been preferred. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly, from the Forensic report it is evident that his rifle was not 2 used. In likewise manner there happens to be neither presence of the petitioner nor any sort of allegation against him with regard to his connectivity with the crime. Then it is submitted that during course of investigation name of his son Angad Tiwari has come up with an allegation that he was possessing rifle during the relevant time and while ruckus was, he after getting the rifle entrusted to Vinod Kumar,n managed to escape. However, no allegation has attributed against him and that happens to be the reason behind that Cr.Misc. No.38836 of 2008, prosecution of Angad Tiwari has been quashed vide order dated 15.12.2011. So submitted that for the present there happens to be no adverse material against him regarding his complicity in the alleged crime nor his rifle has been used during said course. That means to say the aforesaid rifle is not at all required to be retained as an Ext. of the case. On the other hand, learned Additional P.P. opposed the prayer and submitted that during course of marriage procession one of the accused whose name subsequently figured as Manish Kumar and who was also a member of Barat party indulged in an altercation with deceased, Dipak Kumar, as a result of which Dipak Kumar was shot at by him and being a member of Barat party vicarious liability of the petitioner happens to be there. Further it was submitted that petitioner neither happens to be the named nor chargesheet has been submitted against him. Also fairly submitted that from ballistic examination report it is crystal clear that the rifle has not been used. Also fairly submitted that from ballistic examination report it is crystal clear that the rifle has not been used. Thus, taking into accused the totality of the event, I 3 direct that the rifle bearing No.A.B-75- 0920 be released in favour of the petitioner. Learned lower court before issuing the release order will properly verify the genuineness of the documents such as licence, its validity, renewal. The aforesaid release should be manned by condition that the petitioner will produce the aforesaid rifle as and when required by the Court. The release should be effected on a bank guarantee of Rs.1,00,000/-. Office is directed to return back the case diary to the court concerned. As such, successive order of lower court is set aside and consequent thereupon, petition is allowed. AnilKrSinha (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)