IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32538 of 2010 MD.BABLU Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04/ 07.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P.P. for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant. Petitioner is named in the FIR with allegation of firing. The informant (injured) has received altogether six injuries, out of them two injuries are grievous in nature whereas one injury is said to be dangerous to life. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on various grounds including that the informant has not disclosed as to who is author of injury no.2 which is dangerous to life. Secondly, on the ground that statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr. P.C does not inspire confidence as there is contradiction between statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C as well as fardbeyan of the informant but I am not at all convinced with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, informant has very clearly stated in his statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr. P.C that it is the petitioner who is author of injury no.6. Therefore, considering the above stated circumstances, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Md Bablu in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case no.79/2010 stands rejected. As reported by the learned counsel for the informant that the case has already been committed to the court of sessions. The learned Trial Judge is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six - 2 - months and if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the above stated period, he may renew his prayer for bail before the learned court below itself. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)