IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.4671 of 2011 ==================================================== SUBHASH YADAV son of Late Rajendra Yadav - Petitioner/s(s) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR - Opposite Party/s(s) ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH DATE: 13-07-2011 ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH) 5/ 13.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25(1-A), 1(B), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case is that on the date of occurrence the informant’s son learnt that assault was taking place between certain persons at which he went there and tried to intervene and pacify the matter. Parmeshwar Yadav and Sunil Jaiswal took away the rifle of Ramgahan Yadav at which he was very angry and then he called his other relatives and started altercating with the deceased. It is further alleged that accused Ramgahan Yadav shot at the son of the deceased Rajdeo Yadav, on account of which he fell down. Then accused Ramgahan Yadav, Lal Barat Yadav and Subhash Yadav started cutting the dead body into pieces. The petitioner prayed for bail amongst other ground also on the ground that Lal Babu Yadav, who was similarly placed, has been granted bail by this Court. When the matter was heard by another Bench on 24.02.2010, it was of the view that the fact that 2 the petitioner Lal Barat Yadav had cut the dead body into pieces did not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Court and, therefore, he was granted bail and then transferred the present application to this Court. Case diary was called for verification of the post mortem report as to the cause of death of the deceased. From the post mortem report, it appears that the deceased had sustained a fire arm injures which appear to be cause of death and the cut injuries were post mortem in nature and, therefore, at best the petitioner would be liable for prosecution under section 201 Indian Penal Code In view of such, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each or any other surety to be fixed by the court below to the satisfaction of the F.T.C.-2 Bhabhua, in connection with Sessions Trial No.216 of 2010 arising out of Adhoura P.S. Case No.01 of 2010, subject to the conditions (i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner, who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner. The bailors will undertake to furnish information to the court about any change in the address of the petitioner, (ii) That the affidavit shall clearly state that the petitioner is not an accused in any other case and, if he is, he shall not be released on bail, (iii) That the bailors shall also state on affidavit that they will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is implicated in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to 3 initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse, (iv) That the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if he fails to do so on two given dates and delays the trial in any manner, his bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse, and (v) That the petitioner will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled. JA/- (Anjana Prakash,J.)