IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11497 of 2011 Katiman Yadav, son of Late Jalo Yadav, Resident of village- Singhiya, P.S- Nayaram Nagar, District- Munger. Versus The State Of Bihar For the petitioner--- Nawal Kishore Singh For the Informant--- Ranvijay Singh For the State ---Ramsumiran Rai. 03 11.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is accused in connection with Naya Ram Nagar P.S.Case No. 185/2008 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity as the deceased Santu Yadav was an accused of murder case of the father of the petitioner for which, Sessions Trial No. 858/2008 is pending in the court of Additional district & Sessions Judge, F.T.C-IV, Munger. It is further submitted that the F.I.R disclosed only specific allegation against Haro Yadav to fire at deceased Santu Yadav, and general allegation against rest accused including petitioner to open firing at the deceased. Learrned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer of bail of the 2 petitioner with contention that the witnesses Kishore Yadav and Jai Shanker in Paragraph 7 and 19 of the case diary, have stated about the firing by petitioner and co-accused Rupesh Yadav at the deceased. The allegation of informant Usha Devi is that on the date of occurrence on 11.8.08, her husband Santu Yadav was irrigating the field seven accused named in the F.I.R surrounded his and Haro and other also fired at her husband. The paragraphs 7 and 19 of the case witnesses Kishore Yadav and Jai Shankar who are said to be present at place of occurrence said specifically about firing by petitioner and Rupesh Yadav. The Post mortem report as detailed in paragraph 30 of the case diary goes to show that five fire arm injuries on the dead body of deceased Santu Yadav were found. The criminals antecedent of the petitioner is also detailed in paragraph 15 of the case diary. Under the facts and circumstances I am not inclined to allow the prayer of bail of petitioner. Accordingly this application is rejected. Namita ( Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)