IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25899 of 2009 1.BABULAL SAHANI, son of Sri Antu Singh, 2.Arjun Sahani, son of Babulal Sahani, 3.Ravan Sahani, son of Antu Singh 4.Rajdeo Sahani, son of Bhagaran Sahani, All residents of Village: Kamalpura, P.S. Paroo, District: Muzaffarpur. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc.No.28461 of 2009 Kun Kun Sahni @ Kunkun Sahani Son of Late Badan Sahani, Resident of Village-Kamalpura Sahani Tola, P.S. Paroo, District-Muzaffarpur. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 16.10.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State as also counsel for the informant and also perused the case diary. As per version of the injured informant in the F.I.R. for offences under section 302 and other allied sections of I.P.C. there is an omnibus allegation of indiscriminate assault on him and one Pinku Singh by a unruly mob of 20 named persons and a few unnamed persons including the petitioners in which Pinku Singh is said to have later on succumbed to his injuries. Mr. Vindhyakeshri Kumar, learned senior counsel followed by Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, therefore would submit that there being no specific overt act against the petitioners at least of being the assailant of the aforementioned Pinku Singh, the petitioners would be entitled for being enlarged on bail, especially when the police in course of investigation had found part of the prosecution story to be false as recorded in paragraph no.63 of the case diary. They have also 2 submitted that all the petitioners except Babulal Sahani have no criminal antecedent and have remained in custody for more than six months. Counsel for the State as also the Informant, on the other hand, have submitted that merely because the version of the informant was not supported by one Subodh Singh the brother of the deceased leading to submission of final form against a few named F.I.R accused persons it will not mean that no occurrence as alleged had taken place specially when the dead body of Pinku Singh and even injured informant were recovered by the police from the house of Kunkun Sahni. In the opinion of this Court the fact that the failure of the police to record the earliest version despite having arrived at the P.O. within two hours of the occurrence in the night itself had given sufficient time to the prosecution to weave a story, inasmuch as, the fardbeyan of the injured informant was recorded only in the next morning. In addition to it when the police itself in course of investigation had found the informant to have named a large number of innocent persons as also certain injuries on the person of Kunkun Sahni (petitioner) it would be difficult to hold the petitioners either to be aggressors or the main assailant of Pinku Singh. This Court can also not ignore that Pinku Singh was a veteran criminal and therefore, if he was found inside the house of Kunkun Sahani for no justifiable reasons, his being allegedly assaulted by a mob of 20 persons inside the house in the manner alleged seems 3 to be an embellishment in the prosecution story. In any event the injuries on the person of Pinku Singh also do not suggest that he was thrashed by 20 named and a few unnamed persons. To top it all, the injuries also on the person of Kunkun Sahani, in whose house the entire occurrence had taken place, could also lead to an inference that the prosecution party was the aggressor and Pinku Sahani as also the informant may have sustained injuries in scuffle in course of such assault on Kunkun Sahani. In such circumstances this Court is inclined to grant bail to all the petitioners except Babulal Sahani who is said to have criminal antecedent. The prayer for bail of the petitioner Babulal Sahani is rejected for the present by giving him a liberty to move for bail upon completing one year of his judicial custody. Rest of the petitioners, namely, Arjun Sahani, Ravan Sahani, Rajdeo Sahani and Kunkun Shani @ Kunkun Sahani, are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M. (West), Muzaffarpur in connection with Paroo P.S. Case No.190/2008, subject to the condition that one of the bailers for each of them would be a close family members. Rsh/Surrendra (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)