IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16264 of 2011 Mayank Kumar @ Mayank Kumar Munna, S/O-Late Shailesh Prasad Singh Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 04 25.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the father of the deceased. Petitioner is an accused in connection with Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 255 of 2010 registered under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Allegedly, petitioner while going by a motorcycle with deceased opened fire thrice on the deceased as a result of which deceased sustained fire arm injuries and died then and there. Subsequently, informant being a police constable chased the petitioner who ran away making firing in air but subsequently, he was caught by the informant and others and pistol and cartridges were recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and empty cartridges found on the place of occurrence. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no doubt, petitioner was going on motorcycle with the deceased at the time of the alleged occurrence, but as a matter of fact, some unknown persons attacked on the petitioner and deceased and made indiscriminate firings as a result of which deceased sustained fire arm injury whereas petitioner managed to flee from there making firing in his self defence but informant caught the petitioner and in collusion - 2 - with Investigating Officer of this case, namely, Baleshwar Prasad roped the petitioner in this case at the instance of enemies of the petitioner. It is contended by him that according to prosecution case itself, the petitioner was carrying his licensee pistol and made firing from the aforesaid licensee pistol but it is surprising enough that different type of cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence and the aforesaid fact supports the story of the defence. It is also contended by him that the injury sustained by the deceased also makes the prosecution case doubtful. It is further contended by him that the investigation of this case has been reopened at the direction of higher police officials. So, the petitioner is entitled to get privilege of bail under Section 437 (II) of the Cr.P.C. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the father of the deceased drew my attention towards the post-mortem report and submitted that a blackening has been found on the wound of the deceased and the aforesaid fact suggests that firing has been made with close range. It is also contended by him that the informant of this case has no inimical term with the petitioner and moreover, the trial of the petitioner has already commenced and the witnesses would be produced before the trial court in very short span of time. It is also contended by him that petitioner is an influential person and if he comes out from the jail, there is every possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refuted the above stated submission and submitted that trial of the petitioner has - 3 - not been commenced as yet and the case of the petitioner is still pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, I do not feel it proper to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 255 of 2010 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur stands rejected, at least, at this stage. Since the matter is under re-investigation, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail, if any fresh material has come in his favour in course of re-investigation. Shahzad (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)