IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12501 of 2011 GUDDU KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . with Cr.Misc. No.1454 of 2011 GUDDU KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 3. 18.05.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. Co-accused Raju Kumar alias Rajeshwar Raj was granted bail in Cr. Misc. no. 29395 of 2007 on the submission that he was not the assailant who had otherwise been named as Jamun Sah and there was only one fire arm injury on the deceased. Jamun Sah came in Cr. Misc. no. 39631 of 2009 along with the present petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 40550 of 2009. He contended that the allegations were common against four and therefore he could not be alone called the assailant. Notices were issued for cancellation in Cr. Misc. No. 29395 of 2007. After hearing Counsel for the parties on 7.4.2010 the bail granted in Cr. Misc. No. 29395 of 2007 was cancelled and Cr. Misc. Nos. 39631 of 2009 and 40550 of 2009 rejected. The informant was the daughter of the deceased alleging that four named accused came to the shop, each carrying pistol in their hand, pulled out the deceased from the shop by his collar and fired. The deceased fell down and died. In the order dated 7.4.2010 this Court noticed as follows:- “The result would be that despite the identity of the accused not being in doubt, courtesy the Investigating Officer, all the four should be granted bail notwithstanding the fact that they came with fire arm, fired and killed one person which is not in controversy, only because it could not be said with certainty which one of them fired.” The Court went on to observe that:- 2 “Considering the matter for the purpose of bail this Court is satisfied that keeping in mind the relationship between the informant, the FIR witnesses and the deceased no one else would make a true disclosure than the daughter and wife of the deceased, of the real accused” The petitioner Raju Kumar alias Rajeshwar Raj aggrieved by the cancellation of his bail moved the Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 3734 of 2010. The Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition on 30.7.2010 observed as follows;- „Heard learned counsel for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.” While the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition had issued notice and stayed operation of the order of this Court dated 7.4.2010, in Cr. Misc. No. 1454 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner this Court granted him provisional bail on 19.1.2011. Cr. Misc. No. 12501 of 2011 was then filed for modification of the order dated 19.1.2011 with regard to the bailors as directed by the Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not been able to take advantage of the order of provisional bail and has remained in custody throughout. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade the Court that co-accused Raju Kumar alias Rajeshear Raj made a misrepresentation to this Court and obtained a benefit for himself alone. The petitioner‟s case cannot be prejudiced by his conduct. The next submission was that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was not heard on its own merits independently but came to be considered in light of the conduct of co-accused Raju Kumar alias Rajeshewar Raj. 3 The Court finds it difficult to uphold that submission so as to reconsider his prayer for bail afresh. It is apparent from the extract of the order dated 7.4.2010 quoted above that this Court took a holistic view of the entire incident with regard to the four named accused including the petitioner. The provisional bail granted to the petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 1454 of 2011 is therefore cancelled. The application is dismissed. Consequently Cr. Misc. No. 12501 of 21011 is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Needless to state that the trial must proceed now in accordance with law when the prosecution is expected to render all necessary assistance. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)