IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.31763 of 2011 Baldeo Das @ Manoj Das, son of Late Jag Mohan Das Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 3. 02.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case is that the brother of the deceased was called away by the petitioner and his son to sort out a minor dispute between the two families. After walking to a distance, both the accused persons are said to have fired at the deceased on account of which he died. The petitioner contends that in fact, the Informant is not an eye witness which fact is evident from the First Information Report since the Informant himself concedes that after the deceased had left with the two accused, he was engaged in doing his household activities and, thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence and saw the accused persons fleeing away. The further submission is that during investigation, it transpired that the deceased was a criminal and used to commit theft of railway articles and he had been killed in the said transaction. On going through the First Information Report even assuming for sake of argument that the Informant was not an eye witness to the actual occurrence, he had definitely 2 seen the accused persons fleeing away after the occurrence. A number of witnesses supported the fact that the Informant had disclosed immediately on their coming that the petitioner and his son had shot dead the deceased. Two firearm injuries were found on the person of the deceased in the post mortem examination report. The witnesses on the factum of the deceased being a criminal were examined about nine months after the occurrence and the veracity of their statements is doubtful. In view of such, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is rejected. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)