IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.34931 of 2011 Jiwan Prasad & Anr. Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 3 21.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the informant. Petitioners are named in the first information report but no specific overt act has been attributed against them rather it is stated that they along with other accused mercilessly assaulted two persons with different weapons. In course of investigation when the further statement of the informant was recorded, he, specifically, stated that petitioner no.1 gave iron rod blow on the back portion of the head of one of the deceased. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that informant is not an eye witness of the alleged occurrence and, as a matter of fact, in course of investigation he developed his statement. To fortify the above stated contention, learned counsel for the petitioners referred paragraph 8 of the case diary and submitted that when the I.O. reached in the hospital, he found only one Baban Singh present there and none of the family members of the deceased including informant were found present there and, as a matter of fact, the informant as well as his other family members came to hospital after recording paragraph 8 of the case diary. It is further contended by him that petitioner no.1 also sustained injury and no explanation of the above stated injury has been given on behalf of the prosecution. It is further submitted by him 2 that even if prosecution story assumed to be true, then also, a free fight had taken place between the parties in which the deceased as well as the informant sustained injury and unfortunately two persons died in the above stated occurrence. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no iron rod injury has been found on the person of the deceased Rahul Kumar. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer pointing out that in course of investigation several witnesses have supported the prosecution story and the post mortem reports of the deceased support the prosecution case. It is also pointed out by him that, as a matter of fact, when paragraph 8 was recorded by the I.O., the informant and his other family members had accompanied one of the deceased of this case up to Ara hospital and that is why the I.O. has mentioned in paragraph 8 of the case diary that he did not find any person in hospital where the dead body of the deceased Rahul Kumar was lying. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of the allegation leveled against the petitioners I am not inclined to release the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners in connection with Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.93 of 2011 corresponding to G.R.No.1996 of 2011 is, hereby, rejected. AnilKrSinha (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)