IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38185 of 2009 1. MANOJ RAI, son of Ram Nath Rai 2. Megha Rai, son of Late Hari Rai Both residents of village Hirani Bag Goshala, P.S. Chapra Muffasil, District Saran Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 9.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. There is direct allegation against the petitioners for an offence under Section 302/34 and other alleged offence under Indian Penal Code of doing away the life of the deceased Shambhu Rai in an altercation which had taken place involving the informant who was forcibly being taken away by all the four named persons including the petitioners who are said to have intercepted the bus of the informant and having made him captive and getting him seated on the vehicle of the petitioners were escaping. It is said that when cousin grand-father of the petitioner namely Shambhu Rai had gone to rescue the informant Saroj Rai and Awadhesh Rai on the order of petitioner no. 1 had caught hold of Shambhu Rai and the two petitioners had thereafter had also assaulted him. It has also been alleged 2 that when another cousin grand-father of the informant, namely, Shivji Rai had made an attempt to rescue the informant and his cousin Shambhu Rai he too had been also assaulted. Shambhu Rai thereafter is said to have succumbed to his injury in the hospital where he was taken for treatment by the informant and thus the incident of 4 O’clock in the evening of 25.1.2009 was reported to the police on the same day in the night at about 10 P.M. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would however submit that even if the entire allegations made in the F.I.R. are accepted to be true it cannot be a case u/s 302 I.P.C. as there was no intention to kill Shambhu Rai, rather the dispute was with Pintu Rai and therefore, the sudden assault on Shambhu Rai only with a view to make Pintu Rai, the informant, captive cannot be held to be culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s 302 I.P.C. He would further submit that since the petitioners have remained in custody since 28.4.2009 and have also no criminal 3 antecedent, they are entitled to be released on bail. In the opinion of this Court, while it may be true that the petitioners can develop this defence in the ultimate trial that they had no intention to kill the deceased Shambhu Rai but for the present in keeping with the direct allegation of assault against the petitioners which had led to death of the deceased and the injuries particularly one on the nose at base totally depressing the same as also another lacerated wound on the skull would make both the petitioners liable for death of the deceased. That being so, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners for the present. Their prayer for bail is rejected. If the petitioners’ case has already been committed to the court of Sessions, the trial of the petitioners should be expedited and concluded preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. In the event such trial of the petitioners would not be completed solely 4 due to laches on the part of the prosecution, the petitioners will have the liberty initially to move the trial court for grant of bail and the trial court will give reasons for not concluding the trial, only whereafter the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail before this Court. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/