IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22425 of 2008 ANGAD SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR - - - - 3. 16.9.2008 Heard. The case is under Section 302 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. along with five other accused persons and is alleged to have chased the deceased Akhilesh Singh who happened to be the brother of the informant and who was traveling by a motorcycle along with one Vinit Singh. There was another motorcycle also and the informant and Ajay Singh were riding on it. It is alleged that as soon as the deceased saw the accused Dhananjay Singh with a pistol, he diverted his motorcycle and started fleeing away by it by the canal side and the accused persons started firing shots on his back and the deceased, getting injured, tumbled down the vehicle and whereafter all the accused persons pumped their bullets from their respective weapons. Paragraph 56 of the case diary contains 2 the copy of the post-mortem examination report and as appears from its perusal, there were as many as ten wounds, all of them of entry and any of them could be the cause of death. While praying for bail, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, drew the attention of the Court to one of the statements, that’s, of Vinit Singh recorded in paragraph 10 of the case diary to submit that the witness had not stated that this petitioner had fired a shot or anybody had fired a shot upon the deceased. The contention was that, in fact, there had not been any occurrence as alleged and the case appears imaginary and baseless on account of an earlier incident of murder in which the brother of accused Dhananjay Singh, namely, Binod Singh had been murdered by persons which included the two brothers of the present informant, namely, Rajendra Singh and Bhim Singh. Annexure-2 is the document in that behalf. It was contended that the petitioner did not have any enmity with the deceased and there was no reason for the petitioner to 3 have targeted and killed him. The contention further is that the deceased was a constable and was an expert in marksmanship and it is very curious to find that he does not appear to have hit any of the accused or even to have fired a shot in his defence. Learned counsel appearing for the informant has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 42 of the case diary and submitted that Vinit Singh’s company was doubted by the investigating agency. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred to the same paragraph 42 of the case diary and submitted that the witness has supported the incident. For further support learned counsel for the prosecution has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraphs 27 and 28 of the case diary. As may appear from the reading of the F.I.R., it was a concerted act which was indulged into by all the accused persons at a time when the deceased, informant and two others were coming to their village by motorcycle. There is definite allegation against each of the accused that they had 4 fired shots while chasing and also after the deceased had fallen down on the ground. There were as many as ten injuries each of which could be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased, considering which I do not feel inclined to direct the release of the petitioner on bail. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)