MOHD SAHID HUSSAIN SALYAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri U. K. Sarkar, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri G. P. Roy, A P. P. for the State.

(2.) This is a case under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27/3 5 of the Indian Arms Act. From the prosecution case, it appears that while the informant constable Bijay Shanker Singh of Mango Police station along with constable Arjua Singh was going to Mango Police station for calling some officer, he found two vehicles one red Gypsy and another Ambassador car going on the road at high speed. When the informant reach near the K. P. Singh Bagan he heard the Chowkidar shouting that the occupants of the two vehicles had fired at and seriously injured two persons. When the informant went to injured persons he recognised them as one Md. Illias and Professor Kamal Uddin. Professor Kamal Uddin told the informant that Shaffique and Sidique has assaulted them. On this the informant arranged for a vehicle for taking the injured to the hospital where both the injured were declared dead. The petitioner has contended that he is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case only to harass and humilitate him. He has further contended that earlier by the order passed in Bail Petition No. 1013/87 the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to grant provisional bail to this petitioner on 3-11-1987 which was extended from time to time but was finally rejected on 12-1-1988. In the meantime the police had submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and others on 2-1-1988. As per the direction of the learned Sessions Judge the petitioner has surrendered before the S. D. J. M., Jamshedpur on 19-1-1988 since then ha is in custody.

(3.) Shri Sarkar, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has completely misdirected himself in refusing the prayer for bail of the petitioner while granting anticipatory bail to S. M. Shafique who was named by the deceased Professor Kamal Uddin as one of the assailant in his dying declaration. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was one of the occupants of the white Ambassador car and on the self same allegation the police has submitted final report against one Imtiyaz. It has further been contended that the learned Sessions Judge has completely misdirected himself in failing to take into account that when S. M. Shaffique, who was named in the first information report and against whom there is a direct allegation of opening fire on the deceased was granted anticipatory bail by him , the prayer for bail of this petitioner should not have been rejected.