IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8393 of 2008 RAJU SINGH ….. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ….. OPP. PARTY ----------- 4. 28.11.2008 Heard Sri Sada Nand Ray, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri D. Mehta, APP for the State. The case is under Section 302 of the IPC and the petitioner is in custody. The prosecution story is that while the deceased was returnig to his village driving his tractor and trailer the accused persons surrounded him and at the orders of acused Pintu Singh, petitioner Raju Singh fired at Janeshwar Singh and said Janeshwar Singh started quarreling with the petitioner. Accused Budha Singh fired a shot into the right cheek of deceased, as a result of which Janeshwar Singh fell down on the ground, where after accused Pintu Singh also fired but that did not hit the deceased. This petitioner again fired a shot, which hit the deceased on his wrist and Janeshwar Siongh died then and there. The contention is that at best the allegation of firing the shot against the petitioner could be corroborated by one of the injuries, out of four reported in the post-mortem - 2 - examination report and that could not be the cause of death. The further contention is that the false implication of the accused persons in the case could not be ruled out, inasmuch as, the name of Pintu Singh with specific overt act has been given in the FIR but the fact of the matter was that the accused Pintu Sing was arrested in a case in Chhatishgarh and he was produced before a Magistrate and was admitted to bail. It is further contended noticing the above fact of arrest of Pintu Singh and his release on bail, a Bench of this court also admitting the said Pintu Singh to anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 7536 of 2008. The contention next is that Budha Singh appears real man, who had fired a shot into the cheek and that shot appears the cause of death. I have perused the post-mortem examination report and I find that there could be only two injuries on the dead body, inasmuch as, injuries no. 1 and 2 likewise 3 and 4 connected to each other. Injuries no. 1 & 2 could be caused due to the shot fired by accused Budha Singh, whereas 3 and 4 could be assigned to the present petitioner’s shot. There is no definite opinion of the doctor as to which of the two injuries caused one by one, but the doctor has - 3 - mentioned, it was on account of hemorrhage and shock as a result of above injuries caused by fire arms. Considering the facts and circumstances under which the offence was committed, I am not inclined to release the direct of the petitioner Raju Singh on bail. The petition is dismissed. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)