IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50681 of 2008 LOTAN PASWAN, S.I. of Police, Son of Late Fakir Chand Paswan, Resident of Village- Janta Chowk, Police Station- K. Hat, District- Purnea. ------ Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ------ Opposite Party. ----------- 3 6.2.2009 This bail application has been filed on behalf of a Sub-Inspector of Police who apprehends his arrest for offences under Sections 307 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts that have led to the incident in which the petitioner is accused are that one Sanjay Kumar Singh filed a First Information Report that his motorcycle was stopped and he was relieved of all his possessions. On information, the petitioner along with one other went in search of the miscreants. At that time Niranjan Kumar along with Shamsad Alam (Motorcycle Mechanic) were on their motorcycle and it is alleged that they were stopped by the petitioner and one other police constable and without waiting for a moment, the petitioner is said to have fired which hit Shamsad Alam on his hand. Thereafter the police jeep picked the petitioner and injured person and took them to the hospital for treatment for which a case under Section 2 307 was instituted. After investigation the final report was submitted on 8.10.2002 thereafter a protest petition was filed by the informant Niranjan Kumar in the year 2002 and cognizance was taken in the year 2005. The petitioner moved the Court below against the order of cognizance which was dismissed and thereafter moved this Court for quashing of the cognizance and the order passed by the District Judge dated 22.11.2006 passed in revision application. The quashing application, it is submitted was dismissed on 20.9.2008. The petitioner has thereafter moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. Mrs. Anjana Prakash appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has admitted that it was a case of mistaken identify, as he was acting in pursuance of the First Information Report filed by Sanjay Kumar Singh and that the petitioner had no intention to harm or kill Shamsad Alam, the injured. Apart from which the submission is that the petitioner has been punished inasmuch as he has been asked to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- by the Human Rights Commission. 3 The petitioner has already paid the money to the injured person and which has been deducted from his pay. Learned counsel further submits that Niranjan Kumar has also filed a Money Suit 9 of 2000 against the petitioner. Counsel for the informant has appeared before this Court and submits that the petitioner was not acting in the line of his duty and there was no reason for the petitioner to suspect that the informant and Shamsad Alam were criminals and in fact Shamsad Alam has received permanent damage to his hands as a result of the firing. It is further submitted that the High Court did not find any merit in the application filed for quashing the order of cognizance and as such the stand of the petitioner that he was acting in the line of duty has been rejected. The State Government has also refused to grant sanction as according to the State of Bihar, the petitioner was not authorized to fire indiscriminately. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the cognizance has been taken on the basis of a protest petition, there was no intention on behalf of the 4 petitioner to injure Shamsad Alam and the petitioner had merely fired to stop the motorcycle from proceeding further which happened to hit Shamsad Alam. However, considering that the petitioner is a Sub- Inspector of Police and is aware of the procedure in criminal cases but did not think it proper to surrender or seek bail after the cognizance was taken against him, I do not think that he deserves the benefit of grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that it has been filed after about three years from the date of order of cognizance. Besides the explanation offered on behalf of the petitioner that he was pursuing a remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure would not benefit him as no order of stay has been brought on record to justify the delay in filing the bail application. In the result the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)