IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44015 of 2009 ABINASH KUMAR @ SHIV PUJAN SINGH, Son of Ranjan Singh, village Naokothi, P.S. Naokothi, District Begusarai ….. Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR … Opposite Party ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Subhesh Pandey, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. Uma Shankar Pd. Singh, A.P.P. ---- 3 08.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 452, 302, 386, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47A of the Excise Act . It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is not named in the first information report and the first information report clearly shows that co-accused Arvind Singh along with Amit Kumar and others are the main accused. The informant had stated that aforesaid Arvind Singh had fired upon the deceased. Learned counsel further contended that during the course of investigation the informant, the wife of the deceased, has not named this petitioner. However, two sons of the - 2 - deceased, who are not the eye witnesses, have stated that their mother had stated before them that the petitioner was also one of the persons of the unlawful assembly, which is clearly an afterthought. Petitioner is stated to be in custody since 3.6.2009. Learned counsel for the State submits that during the course of investigation petitioner’s name has come up as one of the persons of the unlawful assembly at the time of occurrence when the deceased was killed. Petitioner’s antecedent is not clean. It is also submitted that the prayer of bail of co-accused Rajesh Kumar as well as Arvind Singh had already been rejected by a Bench of this Court. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that another person, whose name has also come during the course of investigation as an active member of the unlawful assembly which had taken life of the husband of the informant, had been denied bail by a Bench of - 3 - this Court and also the fact that antecedent of the petitioner is not clean, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. However, the petitioner, if so advised, would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completion of one year of his judicial custody. With the aforesaid observations, this application is dismissed. Spd/ (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)