IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35116 of 2009 HARINATH RAI, Son of Mahendra Rai, Resident of Village- Ram Nagar, P.S. Chhapra Muffasil, District-Saran. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR With Cr. Misc. No.36085 of 2009 1.Marai Rai 2.Dhanai Rai 3.Deonath Rai All sons of Late Deosaran Rai R/o Village Ram Nagar, P.S. Chapra (M), Distt. Saran at Chapra. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 10/11/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners in both the cases and counsel for the State. The petitioners in both the cases, namely, Harinath Rai (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.35116/2009) and 1.Marai Rai, 2.Dhanai Rai, 3.Deonath Rai (petitioners in Cr. Misc. No.36085/2009) are accused for the offences under sections 147,149,302,447 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1) (X) SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Counsel for the petitioners in both the cases would submit that there is great discrepancy in the later version of the Informant in naming 12 persons including the petitioners to be assailants of the deceased, whereas, mother of the deceased on 1st December, 2008 at P.M.C.H. had given her statement in which she had named only seven persons to be assailants. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also draw attention of this Court towards similar inconsistency in the statement of other persons recorded in paragraph nos. 9,22,23 and 77 of the case diary to contend that there was 2 different version given by all of them and according to these witnesses only Umesh, Khekhar, Binod and Jangha were the assailants. He would therefore make out a case that since the prosecution version is not consistent the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail. In the opinion of this Court in the occurrence a person has lost his life and even if mother of the deceased had named only seven persons which will go to show that the corresponding injury found on the deceased of having sustained at least seven injuries (Injury no.3 has three injuries but recorded as one), this Court would, by following the same principle as in the case of co-accused Lalu Rai and Arun Rai, direct for release of petitioner Deonath Rai (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.36085/2009), and Harinath Rai (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.35116/2009) on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Saran at Chapra in Chapra (M) P.S. Case No.160 of 2008, subject to the condition that one of the bailer of the petitioners must be their close family member. Sofar case of petitioner Marai Rai (petitioner in Cr.Misc. No.36085/2009) is concerned, he is said to be 75 years old and the same is also supported by his identity card issued by the election commission. In that view of the matter, even if petitioner Marai Rai was named and is common in both the First Information Report as also in the statement of mother of the deceased recorded at P.M.C.H., this Court would grant bail to the petitioner Marai Rai only by considering his age. He too therefore be released on bail on 3 furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Saran at Chapra in Chapra (M) P.S. Case No.160 of 2008, subject to the condition that one of his bailer must be his close family member. Prayer for bail of petitioner no.2 Dhanai Rai (petitioner in Cr.Misc. No.36085/2009) is rejected for the present. He may renew his prayer for bail after completing further one year of his judicial custody. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)