IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8692 of 2011 KAILASH YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 05.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the state. Supplementary affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioner for bringing this fact that the petitioner has already been acquitted in almost all the cases which had been earlier instituted against him. It is specific case of the prosecution that the petitioner fired twice as a result of which, the informant sustained fire-arm injury on his hand as well as on head. In course of treatment, three bullets were recovered from the person of the injured. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in course of investigation, except the informant, none of the persons, has stated about the involvement of the petitioner and furthermore, the witnesses who had accompanied the informant at the time of alleged occurrence, have also not supported the prosecution story rather they have stated that some unknown persons had opened fire on the informant. It is also contended by him that the I.O. as well as Dy S.P. has also found accusation false against the petitioner. 2 Taking into consideration the above-said facts and circumstances as well as submission of the parties, particularly this aspect of the matter that the informant who is injured of this case, has specifically stated the name of the petitioner and also the role played by the petitioner, I do not feel it proper to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail in connection of Gogri P.S. Case No. 43 of 2010 stands rejected. AKV/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)