IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41152 of 2009 KEDAR MAHTO, son of Banbari Mahto, resident of village Pachohiya, P. S. Nawada Town, District Nawada….. Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 02.12.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner faces prosecution for offence under Section 307 and other allied sections of Indian Penal Code as also Section 27 of the Arms Act with a specific allegation that the petitioner had given garasa blow on the person of the injured and when the injured was sought to be rescued by his son, he too was assaulted by the petitioner with the butt portion of pistol. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no corresponding injury of garasa on the shoulder which has been found to be only bruise and thus caused by hard and blunt substance and the injury allegedly given by his wife and daughter by way of khanti/rod had nowhere surfaced inasmuch as incised injury found to be simple in nature on the head of the injured would be sufficient to give death blow to the prosecution version of the entire 2 occurrence. Counsel would also submit that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and has been made accused in this case only on account of family dispute. Two things are very clear as with regard to nature of injuries. Firstly, the injury on the person of the injured informant by a sharp cutting weapon which was in the hand of the petitioner is writ large in presence of two incised injury on the head. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that whatever has been alleged against the petitioner in the first information report would not inspire confidence. Secondly, even if the injury as subscribed to wife and daughter would not find place in the injury report that may at best go to their benefit of their being falsely implicated but when the petitioner’s blow would get reflected on the injury reports, this court would not be inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage when he has remained in custody hardly for a period of four months. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of 3 the petitioner is rejected. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail initially before the trial court itself if his trial does not come to an end within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by the trial court and the trial court would record its reasons for not concluding the trial in the prescribed period whereafter only the petitioner may move this Court for bail in the present case. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)