IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35425 of 2009 1. ASHOK YADAV, son of late Mali Yadav 2. Laddu Yadav, son of Ashok Yadav, both are resident of village Moranga P.S. K.Hat (Moranga), District Purnea Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 15.10.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. Considering the nature of allegation of doing away the life of 15 years old boy in a brutal manner and such injuries being fully corroborated in the postmortem report, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners only because in the F.I.R. it is mentioned that there was a dispute with regard to certain piece of land between the prosecution party and Laddu Yadav, petitioner no.2. From the order of the Sessions Judge it appears that the version of the informant also got support from two other independent witnesses, namely, Umesh Yadav and Bhim Kumar. Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, would submit that the aforesaid two persons had never 2 supported the manner of occurrence and this Court may verify the same after calling for and looking into the case diary. This Court would however find that such oral submissions of the learned counsel is not even backed by any such statement to this effect in the bail application and a plea raised by Mr. Prasad that such statements are usually not made in bail applications filed before this Court as they are incorporated in the case diary, to which any accused including the petitioners would have no access has to be only noted for its being rejected. Such statement of Md. Bhola Prasad would also not inspire confidence for yet another simple reason because from the same case diary the petitioners have been able to get a copy of the postmortem report which is made Annexure 2 to this bail application. Therefore, if the petitioners did not chose to assail the aforementioned statement of the two witnesses as referred in the order of the learned court below while rejecting prayer for bail of the petitioners, there would be an irresistible conclusion that they had actually supported the prosecution 3 case. It is also not necessary that this Court must call for case diary in each and every bail application and keep itself occupied in hearing one bail application on several days specially when it is in a position to dispose of the same on the basis of a reasoned order passed by the court below after looking into and referring the relevant paragraphs of the case diary which has also not been assailed to be based on any error of record. For all these reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. The prayer for bail of the petitioners is, therefore, rejected. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/