IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7591 of 2010 BINOD PANDEY . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 2. 12.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the informant. The defence of the petitioner in a Police case under Sections 302 and 34 of the Penal Code is that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The agreement for sale with regard to the lands in question had already been executed in favour of the mother of the petitioner and that there was a delay in institution of the F.I.R. Counsel for the informant points out that the allegations are that on 13.6.2009 morning 7:30 a.m., the petitioner had come to the house of the informant and queried about the deceased and when he was told that he had gone towards the chimney bhattha. The dead body has then been found the same day at 12 noon near chimney bhattha, the deceased was opposing the desire of the petitioner for execution of deeds for remaining lands. The impugned order of rejection notices strong circumstantial evidence against the petitioner. This Court is not persuaded to grant bail to the 2 petitioner at this stage. Should the informant or other charge sheet witnesses except the official witnesses not abide by the undertaking given to this Court for their appearance to depose on dates fixed, delaying the trial, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail. The application is rejected for the present. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)