IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23956 of 2008 PERMA NAND PANDEY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 10.11.2008 Heard Sri Tara Kant Jha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dashrath Mehta, learned A.P.P. The case is under section 302 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. The allegation is that after Binod Kumar Singh, son of the informant, who happens to be the deceased of the case, was shot by accused Gabbar Pandey and when he tumbled down into a paddy field from his scooter, the present petitioner and two other accused Gabbar Pandey and Srikant Pandey went near the deceased and fired repeated shots at him. The further allegation is that accused Srikant Pandey again went near the deceased and fired shot into his head. There is no dispute in the fact that there were as many as six fire arm injuries which could individually or cumulatively be the result of death of Binod Singh. It is also not denied that there is bad blood between the parties so much so that father of the co- accused Gabbar Pandey instituted a case relating to murder in which the informant and the deceased were the accused and father of this petitioner was standing as a witness of the prosecution. The contention, as such, is that so as to drawing blood and wrecking vengeance the present petitioner has falsely and wrongly been implicated. Elaborating upon the fallacy of the prosecution - 2 - case so as to eastablishing the probabilities of innocence, Sri Tara Kant Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, took me through the F.I.R. so as to submitting that initially none of the named accused were alleged to be armed with any weapon ; if there were any one armed, they have been described as unknown persons. But, all on a sudden, it was contended, that each and every named accused is assigned the role of having fired at the deceased, the first shot or the subsequent shots, so as to killing him. It was contended that the informant, in fact, could not be certain as to who had killed his son and was well aware that it could be the unknown persons who could have done it, but in order to wrecking vengeance went to assign specific role so as to finally implicating the petitioner and two others. It was contended that some of the accused persons like Kamlesh Kumar, who was also sitting on the same motor-cycle of the present petitioner, has been admitted to bail and that contention is established by attaching the notesheet of the Registry of the Court indicating admission of Kamlesh Kumar to bail in Cr. Misc. case no.18570 of 2006. This Court at the present stage of hearing a petition of bail could not go into the fallacy of the prosecution case which was pointed out by the learned senior counsel and has to confine itself to the allegation which could be appearing against all or every one of the accused. Going by that standard of appreciating the prayer for bail, what appears is that the petitioner is also one of the - 3 - assailants of the deceased, who fired and killed him, considering which the petition is dismissed. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )