IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41132 of 2009 DILIP KUMAR son of Krishnandan Mahto @ Aghori Mahto, resident of Village Rajake Pur, P.S. Nawkothi, Dist. Begusrai. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 1/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner faces prosecution for the offence under sections 307/323 of the Indian Penal Code as also sections 25/26/27/35 of the Arms Act with an allegation that he was apprehended with firearm at the spot by the Informant, a retired constable of the Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.) and when the petitioner faced resistance from the Informant he had also made an attempt on the life of the informant by opening fire, which had escaped the informant as he had made a timely dive to save himself. Counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing as that of co- accused Lalan Sharma who was already granted bail by the court below itself and that the allegation itself seems to be absurd, inasmuch as, when the two persons are said to have opened fire arm injury, recovery of only one fire arm by itself would mean that a false criminal case was filed by the Informant against the petitioner. He has also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 29.8.2009 and as per case diary there are only two other earlier criminal cases pending against him. In the opinion of this Court recovery of one pistol from 2 the conscious possession of the petitioner with cartridges and the allegation of his being apprehended by the Informant, a retired C.R.P.F. personnel and his specific assertion that it was the petitioner who had opened fire arm injury from which the petitioner could save himself, would not make case of the petitioner on the same footing as that of co-accused Lalan Mahto as has been rightly distinguished by the court below itself in the impugned order. The submission of the learned counsel that either recovery of only one of the two pistols or no recovery of any used cartridge would give death blow to the prosecution case. Proceeds on an assumption that the Informant who had tried to save the life of a bye-stander by catching hold of the petitioner was also required to nab everything from the conscious possession of both the persons. It also cannot be denied that the petitioner himself at the time of his being apprehended at the spot was found to be in conscious possession of fire arm and therefore the allegation as brought forward by the informant a retired C.R.P.F. personnel, against the petitioner can not be disbelieved. The petitioner, in fact, has also avoided to make his own statement about the criminal antecedent in the bail application and therefore when this Court has found from the order of the court below that the petitioner has also chequered past, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail for the present till he would complete his judicial custody for further period of one year from today, by which time the trial court must make its endeavour to conclude the trial 3 itself. That being so, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected with a liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer on or after 1.12.2010 but only after giving his full criminal antecedent and moving the court below which would record its reasons for not concluding the trial in the integerrum period of one year whereafter only the petitioner may renew his prayer before this court. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)