IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16789 of 2011 DILIP YADAV, S/O-LATE INDRADEO YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 27.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. There is specific allegation of committing murder against the petitioner and it is specifically alleged that he opened fire on the informant’s wife as a result of which she having sustained fire arm injury died then and there. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the informant is not an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and in course of investigation, not a single witness has claimed to have seen the petitioner committing the alleged murder but I am not, at all, convinced with his submission because the informant has claimed himself to be an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence in his Ferdbeyan and furthermore, the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge discloses that one Salima Devi has also claimed to have seen the alleged occurrence. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as allegation levelled against the petitioner, I do not feel it proper to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Begusarai Balia P.S. Case No. 232 of 2010, stands rejected. Shahzad ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)