IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26227 of 2009 MADHU YADAV @ MADHUA son of late Hakru Yadav, R/o vill.-Hardiya, P.S.-S. Kamal, Dist.-Begusarai. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6. 12.3.2010. Heard Mr. Subhash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Uma Shanker Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Khagaria Mufassil P.S. Case No.10 of 2004 registered for the offences under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The accusation against the petitioner is that while the informant along with her husband was coming on a bus, it was stopped and the petitioner along with other co-accused persons forcibly entered into the bus. This petitioner firstly fired on the husband of the informant. Thereafter, it has been alleged that other co-accused also fired. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that allegation was that the petitioner firstly fired on the deceased but it has not been disclosed that his firing hit which part of the deceased. On these grounds he submits that this petitioner may not be termed as main assailant. In this case first information report was lodged against eight accused persons including the petitioner. First information report was lodged on 11th January, 2004. Earlier a report was called for. In this case two reports have been received. First report 2 dated 11.1.2010 kept at flag ‘X’ indicates that since the petitioner was not appearing, the case of the petitioner and a few co-accused were separated from other co-accused. The report further indicates that due to the reason that the petitioner is accused in a number of cases he was not being produced by the jail authority and due to that reason commitment in this case had delayed. The second report dated 22nd January, 2010 is kept at flag ‘Y’. On perusal of the second report, it is evident that the case of this petitioner along with co-accused Madhu Yadav and Dilip Yadav has already been committed to the court of Sessions. Keeping in view the allegation against the petitioner and also in view of the fact that he was one of the assailants in this case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)