IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36838 of 2009 Kunal Mani @ Pinku, S/O Sri Mahanand Singh, Vill.- Khilwat, P.S.- Bidurpur, Distt.- Vaishali. ------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ------ Opp. Party With Cr.Misc. No.38619 of 2009 Mahanand Singh, Son of Late Kunj Bihari Singh, Resident of Village Khilwat, P.S. Bidurpur, District Vaishali. --------- Petitioner Versus State of Bihar ----- Opp. Party ----------- 4 01.04.2010 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Markandey Singh, learned counsel for the informant as also counsel for the State in both the cases. The two petitioners face prosecution for offence under Sections 384, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act in which death of one person and injury by fire-arm has been found on two other persons. Mr. Thakur, however, would submit that both the petitioners would be entitled for grant of bail, inasmuch as, there is no specific allegation as to whose fire-arm injury had caused the death of the deceased. Explaining this aspect of the matter, Mr. 2 Thakur has tried to give a jolt to the prosecution case by taking a plea that the informant in fact was not an eye-witness and the entire story given by him cannot be believed. For that purpose, he has relied on the statement of the injured Dhirendra Singh who is said to be present at the time of occurrence. Mr. Markandey Singh on the other hand has placed the materials with great precision and has tried to explain that there are clinching materials to show that both the petitioners had fired indiscriminately and so far Mahanand Singh is concerned, he was the leader of the gang whose presence has been noted by each and every witness whereas in paragraph no.41 of the case diary, Anil Chaudhary has stated about the petitioner Kunal Mani to have given the fatal fire-arm injury on the deceased. In the opinion of this Court, it would be wholly premature to doubt the version of the informant specially when even Dhirendra Singh in paragraph no.14 of the case diary has stated almost the same fact including the role 3 of Mahanand Singh. In fact, there are overwhelming material to show that it was Mahanand Singh’s preparation and finishing which had given rise to the incident in question. The role of the petitioner Kunal Mani of course is there to the extent that he was also accompanying Mahanand Singh but the specific allegation against him being brought by only one person which may shake the prosecution case as against Mahanand Singh, this Court for the time being, by taking into account that the role of Mahanand Singh in the whole incident was more detrimental, would reject his prayer for grant of bail. As noted above, the case of the petitioner, namely, Kunal Mani @ Pinku is on a different footing and therefore, taking into account that there has been only one death in which complicity of Mahanand Singh seems to be more prominent and dominant, this Court for the time being, at least till the conclusion of the trial would direct for release of the petitioner, namely, Kunal Mani @ Pinku on bail. That being so, the prayer for bail of 4 the petitioner, namely, Mahanand Singh is hereby rejected and the petitioner, namely, Kunal Mani @ Pinku is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2009. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner, namely, Kunal Mani @ Pinku would remain absent in course of trial for more than two consecutive dates, his present bail shall stand cancelled. With the aforesaid observations and directions both the applications are disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)