IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6658 of 2011 Buchukun Mukhia @ Buchakan Mukhia, S/O- Sri Lakhan Mukhia Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 04 24.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner is named in the first information report and there is specific allegation against him that he gave twice lathi blow on the head of the deceased. According to prosecution case, the alleged occurrence took place at two places. The first phase of occurrence took place at the door of house of the informant whereas second phase of occurrence took place on the roof of a Dharamshala. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no occurrence, as alleged in the first information report, did ever take place and, as a matter of fact, a petty altercation took place between the parties and in the aforesaid altercation, deceased fell from the roof as a result of which he sustained injury on his head. It is further contended by him that there is inconsistency between the statements of prosecution witnesses as well as post-mortem report and inquest report. It is also contended by him that no case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code is made out and even if, the prosecution story assumed to be true, then also, at best, it is a case of Section 304 part-II of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, deceased died on account of his head injury in course of his treatment and as per prosecution case, the author of the aforesaid injury is none else but the petitioner. So, in my view, it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. 2 Accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Babubarhi P.S. Case No. 64 of 2010, stands rejected, at least, at this stage. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within one year from the date of receipt of this order to the trial court, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the trial court itself. Shahzad ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)