IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14768 of 2010 VINAYAK JHA, SON OF SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.16393 of 2010 DIP LAL MANDAL @ DIP NARAYAN MANDAL, SON OF RAM PRATAP MANDAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 02.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Informant in the First Information Report has stated that while he, the deceased and one Shailendra Mahto were returning on a motorcycle, they were intercepted by one Jai Kumar Mandal who asked for his Mobile but when the Informant refused, he began to snatch it and then allegedly co- accused Dip Lal Mandal, the petitioner and one Shambhu Mandal, came there, and they variously started firing due to which the deceased received injuries and died but the Informant was allegedly injured in the transaction. He further narrates that Shailendra Mahto managed to escape and ran away whereas he was brought to the Hospital since he was injured. He stated that he was giving the Fard bayan after more than 12 hours of the occurrence because he was not in a position to do so earlier. From the case diary it appears that the Investigating 2 Officer had received an information that some occurrence had taken place upon which he had gone to the place of occurrence and found the dead body and other incriminating articles, but the father of the deceased refused to give any statement because he was not an eye witness and categorically stated that the Informant and Shailendra Mahto accompanying the deceased would know the assailants. Thereafter, the inquest report of the deceased was done by the Investigating Officer. In the entire case diary, Shailendra Mahto, the next eye witness has not been examined but other witnesses have supported the fact that the petitioners were seen running away from the place of occurrence with fire arms. The contention of the petitioners that the father of the deceased gave a statement which is contrary to one given by first Informant appears to be belated also in view of the fact that earlier he had refused to give any statement to the Investigating Officer. In view of such, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)