IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25626 of 2008 BABLU CHAURASIYA …. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …. OPP. PARTY ----------- 4. 1.12.2008 Considering the attempt made by the learned counsel for the informant, he is discharged from this case. Heard Sri Tarakant Jha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Mehta, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The case relates to killing of three persons in a market place by a group of 60 – 70 persons, in which 8 persons have been identified and named in the FIR. The night was dark and the place of occurrence was the medicine shop of the informant. The criminals came with deadly weapons and started firing indiscriminately, as a result of which three men died. There is a motive alleged for the occurrence and that was the differences between the parties on elections. The contention is that the informant, though, named the petitioner in the FIR, did not assign any specific role to him. However, after about three months of the incident, the son of the informant Shashi Chaurasia appeared before the - 2 - police in paragraph 124 of the case diary, who specifically alleged against the petitioner as he has killed one of the deceased. The contention is that he claimed himself to be the injured. But his father, the informant, who lodged the FIR after about four hours did not mention in the FIR that Shashi Chaurasia, his son had received injury or that he has been injured. Besides, there was no medical report attached to the case diary or even a mention of the fact that the said Shashi Chaurasia was injured and admitted in any hospital. The contention is that there might have been some incident but the witnesses except the above noted do not support the participation or any act of the petitioner. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred to him paragraph 60 and 61 of the case diary, which contain the statement of one Rajesh Kumar, who is also son of the informant and he has stated that he could not say as to who had participated, fired and killed which of the three deceased persons. The other witness in paragraph 61 of the case diary Ramdeo Manjhi has claimed knowledge about the incident on hearsay. Besides, he had given a description of some incident taking prior to the occurrence. - 3 - As a matter of fact, on perusal of the case diary there does not appear any specific allegation made or role assigned to the present petitioner, considering which, let petitioner Bablu Chaurasiya be released from custody on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger in connection with Nayaram Nagar P.S. Case No. 61 of 2008. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)