IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.17602 of 2010 FOUNTAIN SINGH @ JANARDAN SINGH, SON OF LATE KAILASH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DAKSHINI CHAK, POLICE STATION-ATHMALGOLA, DISTRICT-PATNA . ................. PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR .............................OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 6. 10.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.A. Ahmad, learned Add. P. P. for the State. Petitioner, who is in custody in Barh (Athmalgola) P.S. Case No. 284 of 1998 in a case registered for the offence under Sections 307, 324, 337, 353, 147, 149, 186 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms act and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was subsequently added, has prayed for grant of bail. In the present case while police party had visited the house of the accused person including the petitioner in compliance of the order issued by the learned Magistrate in connection with Barh P.S. Case No. 377 of 1997 for executing the attachment order, the accused person including the petitioner opened fire on police party. In self- defence police have also fired. However, one girl of the village was killed in the said firing. It was alleged that the girl died due to the firing opened by the accused person. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the bail petition submits that during investigation no fired cartridge used from the double barrel gun was recovered. However, some fired cartridge of rifle were recovered. It was further submitted that post mortem report of the deceased further corroborates that such injury was not possible from such a distance which was alleged in the First Information 2 Report. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several points doubting the prosecution case, it was argued that the police have fabricated a false case. Fact remains that police party had gone to execute attachment order issued in a case in which this petitioner along with other accused were absconding. Further it is evident that in the present case F.I.R. was lodged in the year 1998 and after a lapse of about 11 years the petitioner has appeared. In view of the fact that the petitioner remained absconder as well as the fact that the petitioner was also an accused in another case, this court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. The prayer for bail stand rejected. Amit ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)