ORDER D.P. Singh, J. 1. Heard Doth the sides. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Dilip Singh, submitted that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 189 of 2005 from 28.11.2006. The learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner along with two others has been involved in this case falsely by the informant against whom his brother has lodged Sakchi P.S. Case No. 188 of 2005 for various offences including under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that originally the FIR was lodged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and afterwards charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code also. 2. My attention was drawn towards the late submission of the charge-sheet against the petitioner and also that in counter case charge-sheet has been submitted against the informant and others. It is submitted that in counter case the evidence as well as FSL reports falsify the allegations made against the petitioner in the present case. The learned Counsel persuaded me in vain to go through the case diary of Sakchi P.S. Case No. 188 of 2005. Both cases have been investigated separately and charge-sheets submitted independently. It was also suggested that the death of the child occurred not by firing resorted to by this petitioner but due to indiscriminate firing from the other side. Accordingly, petitioner who has under gone open-heart surgery in February 2007 may be admitted to regular bail. 3. Larned APP for the State along with Mr. A.K. Kashyap learned Counsel appearing for the informant opposed these contentions on the ground that the petitioner is named in the FIR to have fired upon the informant and others resulting in death of a child for an occurrence dated 12.8.2005. Learned Counsels further submitted that the petitioner and others have taken law in their hands and came to the place of occurrence having prepared themselves with many fire arms and fired upon, resulting in death of a child. Mr. A.K. Kashyap learned Counsel appearing for the informant further pointed out that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent vide para 145 of the case diary for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act and Explosive Substance Act. Mr. A.K. Kashyap learned Counsel appearing for the informant further pointed out that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent vide para 145 of the case diary for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act and Explosive Substance Act. It was also submitted that the prayer for anticipatory bail and regular bail of the petitioner has been rejected earlier by this Court and Sessions Court on merit. Learned Counsel further pointed out that eye- witnesses vide para 33 to 40 of the case diary have specifically mentioned that the death of child occurred due to firing made by this petitioner using the rifle. Therefore the petitioner does not deserved to be admitted on bail. 4. At this stage the learned Counsel for 4he petitioner drew my attention towards Annexures 11, 12 and 13 of the supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that two of the co-accused have been admitted to bail earlier, therefore the petitioner may be admitted to regular bail. Learned Counsel for the informant contrary to this, opposed this contention on the ground that bail in B.A. No. 6264 of 2005 was allowed observing therein that the informant party has not sustained any fire arm injury and bail in B.A. No. 6324 of 2005 was obtained on same grounds. 5. Having considered the submissions made by both the sides along with the materials available in the case diary of Sakchi P.S. Case No. 189 of 2005. it is apparent that the petitioner along with two others stand charge-sheeted for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other various charges. Earlier bail order was passed by different Bench on the submission that the informant party has not sustained any fire arm injury. The facts on record indicate that a child died during the occurrence alleged in which the petitioner is said to have fired upon from the rifle he was carrying. It also appears that earlier bails were allowed this fact as well as charge-sheets not having been produced before the Benches. 6. In view of the facts, stated above. I find that the case of the petitioner stand on different footing. Keeping in view of the serious nature of charges and the overt act attributed to him who has got criminal antecedent also. I am not inclined to admit him on bail. 6. In view of the facts, stated above. I find that the case of the petitioner stand on different footing. Keeping in view of the serious nature of charges and the overt act attributed to him who has got criminal antecedent also. I am not inclined to admit him on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner above named, is rejected.