- (1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under sections 302, 307, 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 27 of the Arms Act and further Section 17 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court twice in B.A No. 8642 of 2009 vide order dated 12th April 2010 and in B.A No. 6073 of 2010 vide order dated 20th August 2010. THE counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the another two co-accused namely Sinod Lohra and Deepak Adikhari have been granted bail who are standing on the similar footing with the present petitioner. It is also submitted that the present petitioner is in custody from 04.09.2009 i.e more than one year. The counsel appearing for the State Mr.A.B.Mahto submits that the petitioner is not standing on the similar footing with the aforesaid co-accused. It has come in the case diary that two witnesses have named the petitioner. Furthermore, it has also come in the case diary that the present petitioner has used the looted mobiles. He has further submitted that this is the case of murder of four persons as well as attempt to commit murder of Bhandu Oraon. Report regarding the stage of the trial has come which shows that the trial court has already examined 14 witnesses out of 21 charge-sheeted witnesses. The doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of all the four deceased and two I.Os, are yet to be examined.
(3.) CONSIDERING the seriousness of the offence and considering the materials which have come in the case diary against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.;