IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33377 of 2010 MUNNA SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 06.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the state assisted by learned counsel for the informant. Petitioner is said to be the main assailant. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the police got information about the alleged occurrence at 7.40 p.m. and reached at the place of occurrence at 9.00 p.m. and thereafter, police prepared inquest report at about 9.00 p.m. but police did not find the informant at the place of occurrence and, therefore, the aforesaid circumstance clearly suggests that the informant is not an eye witness of the alleged occurrence and she came at the place of occurrence after the alleged occurrence had taken place. He further submitted that several witnesses have stated that it was the deceased who tried to commit murder of petitioner and others but he was caught hold by the petitioner and some other accused as a result of which, the licensee gun of the deceased fired accidentally and he sustained fire-arm injury. To fortify the above-said contention, Learned counsel for the petitioner referred Paragraphs- 19, 20 and 21 of the case diary. The witnesses 2 whose statements have been incorporated by the I.O. at Paragraphs-19, 20 & 21 have stated that the deceased fired first on land but the I.O. did not find any sign of firing on land while visited the place of occurrence. So the aforesaid objective finding of the I.O. completely belies the statements of above-said witnesses. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering this aspect of the matter that the petitioner is the main assailant, I do not think it proper to grant him the privilege of bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Udwant Nagar P.S. Case No. 70 of 2010 stands rejected. AKV/- ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)