IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6095 of 2011 FULESHWAR SADA @ FULO SADA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 23.3.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition for bail has been filed by the petitioner who is in jail for offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. A similar petition had been filed earlier, criminal Misce. No. 19725 of 2010 which was dismissed by this Court on 12.10.2010. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is the husband of the Mukhiya and he is the head of the land grabbers and had directed accused persons that unless some people are killed they won’t be able to grab the lands from its owners, where after the carnage took place on the date of occurrence and 16 persons of Village-Amousi were killed at the instance of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the trial has started in which none of the witnesses so far examined had taken the name of the petitioner and the petitioner is incarcerated in custody since about one year. 6. It is quite apparent that some particular witnesses are yet to be examined and hence, it cannot be said that no one had named this petitioner. The allegation is very serious in nature and hence this Court does not see any reason to take a view different to the view taken earlier. 7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Prakash ( S.N.Hussain, J.) 2