IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33014 of 2009 DEVI LAL son of Jaya Thakur resident of village- Haripur Krishna, Police Station- Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur….. Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 4. 27.11.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for the informant. The petitioner being accused for offence under Section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code seeks bail primarily on the ground that the allegation of causing farsa injury on the head of informant is not only false but also is based on a concocted injury report prepared by a private doctor. It is further stated that the petitioner did not give repeated blow as would be appear from that concocted injury report. Mr. Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and in fact has been framed in this case by the informant only because a few days’ earlier an occurrence had taken place in which the petitioner himself sustained injury in the hands of informant for which the matter was 2 reported to Gram Panchayat. On the other hand, counsel for the informant has submitted that medical evidence even if is sought to be doubted by the petitioner there is direct ocular evidence in form of statement of the informant and its being supported by an eye witness Krishna Thakur. As with regard to repeated blow, counsel for the informant would submit that there was one injury on the head which had been found by the doctor to be grievous in nature and there was hardly any time for the informant himself to decide as to which doctor he would be taken inasmuch the informant had sustained a serious nature of injury and was carried by his people to the nearest private doctor for treatment. This court by an earlier order dated 16.9.2009 had directed the investigating officer to file his affidavit as to whether he had recorded the statement of the privte doctor who had given the injury report dated 12.6.2009 and if not, the reason for the same. The investigating officer was further directed to place on record any other official injury report. The Investigating 3 Officer in compliance of the said order has filed his affidavit wherein it has been stated that on being informed by the informant with regard to his treatment he had directed the concerned Dr. Rajesh Kumar by his letter dated 11.6.2009 to submit the injury report of the informant and thereafter he had also received the said injury report dated 12.6.2009. There is however no explanation as to why the said doctor was not examined by the police at earlier point of time nor the Investigating Officer has placed on record any official injury report prepared by any Government doctor. This court would find that said Dr. Rajesh Kumar claims that he had examined the informant on 1.6.2009 and treated him thereafter but no injury report was prepared by him for the period of 11 days. In such circumstances, when injury report of a private doctor is belated by 11 days and that too has been submitted on the requisition of the investigating officer that by itself would not inspire full confidence in the nature of injury given in his injury report but then the same cannot be altogether 4 brushed aside specially when it refers to detailed investigation and reports including radiological examination of the head injury and its being grievous in nature on the basis of X-ray Plates which only lend support to the statement of two eye witnesses including the informant with regard to causing Farsa injury on the head. The petitioner is in custody only since 11.6.2009 and has also not clearly stated about his criminal antecedent in his bail application. Thus, taking the aforesaid circumstances into consideration, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected for the present. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after completing one year of his judicial custody. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)