IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.44007 of 2010
KRISHNA KUMAR @ KARU S/O BHAGWAN DAS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
with
Cr.Misc. No.2033 of 2011
1. BHAGWAN DAS S/O LATE BAL GOVIND SAO
2. VINOD DAS S/O BHAGWAN DAS
3. ARUN KUMAR S/O BHAGWAN DAS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
3. 15.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
counsel for the informant and the state.
The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted
for the offence under Sections 341,302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.
In the First Information Report there is a
general allegation against all the accused persons of
having fired at the deceased, which fact was supported
by the deceased’s father also in statement recorded
during investigation. The inquest report suggested
recovery of five cartridges from the place of occurrence
but the post examination report revealed a single injury
having been sustained by the deceased. The rest of the
witnesses who were examined during investigation did
not disclose any names either as having seen them at
the place of occurrence or having heard the names of
the accused from the informant or the deceased’s
2
father. Some witnesses in paragraph 35 and 36 have
speculated that since the business of the accused was
not doing as well as that of the deceased they may have
a bad feeling towards the deceased.
It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioners that even earlier an attempt had been made
on the life of the deceased by some unknown persons
but even then the petitioners were not suspected to be
involved. Further submission is that during
investigation when the place of occurrence was
inspected a map was drawn and the Investigating
Officer concluded that it was not possible for the
informant or her father-in-law to have seen the
occurrence.
Learned counsel for the informant was unable
to point out anything more than that was collected
during investigation and has not been able to refute the
arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioners
while opposing the prayer for bail.
Considering the same, as also that the
petitioners have no criminal antecedents, let the
petitioners above named, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/-(Five thousand) each
3
with two sureties of the like amount each or any other
surety to be fixed by the court concerned to the
satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jehanabad in connection with Shakurabad P.S. Case
No. 91/2010, subject to the conditions, (i) That one of
the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners who
will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is
related with the petitioners. The bailors will undertake
to furnish information to the Court about any change in
address of the petitioners. (ii) That the affidavit shall
clearly state that the petitioners are not an accused in
any other case and, if they are, they shall not be
released on bail, (iii) That the bailors shall also state on
affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the
petitioners are implicated in any other case of similar
nature after their release in the present case and
thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate
the proceeding for cancellation of bail on ground of
misuse, (iv) That the petitioners will give an
undertaking that they will receive the police papers on
the given date and be present on date fixed for charge
and if they fail to do so on two given dates and delays
the trial in any manner, their bail will be liable to be
4
cancelled for reasons of misuse, (v) That the petitioners
will be well represented on each date if they fail to do so
on two consecutive dates, their bail will be liable to be
cancelled.
Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J.)