IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41313 of 2009 Parmanand Yadav, Son of Bhubneshwar @ Guleshwar Yadav, Resident of Village Pratarpur, P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, District Begusarai. ------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar --------- Opp. Party ----------- 2 2.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, facing prosecution for an offence under Section 147/148/149/302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, would seek bail primarily on the ground that when seven persons are said to have indiscriminately fired on the person of the deceased, the resultant two firm arm injuries found on the person of the deceased as per postmortem report would not make the petitioner personally liable and at least would be good enough for grant of his bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has gone to make a submission that the case diary should be called for and the statement of the witnesses should be verified because there is a different statement in paragraph no.11 of the bail application that there is only one eye witness, namely, the informant. In the opinion of this Court, first of 2 all the allegations which have been made in the First Information Report cannot be said to be false only because there is no eight fire- arm injuries on the person of the deceased. The version of the informant to the extent of causing fire-arm injury is well proven from the resultant death of the deceased caused by the fire-arm. That apart, this Court would not feel requirement of looking into the case diary because the sessions judge has made a neat survey of the materials in the case diary as is recorded in the paragraph no.4 of the impugned order and therefore, this Court would find that the petitioner’s application for bail cannot be allowed only because there was some land dispute which could have led to false implication. Enmity cuts both ways and therefore, this Court would find that the informant’s version stands supported from the version of other accused persons, namely, Ranjeet Yadav in Para-6, Ramchandra Yadav in Para-7, Ram Sumiran Yadav in Para-8, Gorelal Yadav in Para-15, Dhyani Yadav in Para-16 and Chandradeo Yadav in Para-17 of the case diary 3 who are said to have also named the petitioner to be not only present at the time of occurrence but also firing with their arms. That by itself would be sufficient also to reject the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no witness other than the informant. That being so, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Parmanand Yadav is hereby rejected. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)