JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this case, the petitioner, facing prosecution for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. Having regard to the elaborate submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail primarily on the ground that the petitioner is one of the main assailants, who would not be entitled to question the specific allegation in ocular version of the informant in F.I.R. which also stands corroborated in the statement of other persons who were eye witnesses on a mere ipsi dixit of alleged non-availability of inquest report or opinion of the Doctor in his post-mortem report specially when they were not either looked into or fully analysed by this Court while allowing the prayer of anticipatory bail of Suresh Chandra, the father of the petitioner vide an order dated 14.08.2014 in Cr. Misc. No. 14683 of 2014. 4. Mr. Durgesh Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has however insisted that this Court must give its detailed reason for rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and so be it in the following words. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard has sought to capitalize on the aspect that the inquest report having been not incorporated by the Investigating Officer in the case diary, its authenticity is doubtful. He has also heavily relied on the timing and opinion of the Doctor in the post mortem report by highlighting that even when autopsy on the person of the deceased was conducted within three to four hours of the occurrence the doctor conducting such post-mortem had not only found presence of rigor mortis in only lower limb, but had also given opinion as with regard to the time of death of the deceased anywhere in between 24 to 36 hours which would automatically discredit the time of occurrence as alleged by the informant in F.I.R. He has also submitted that on identical allegation, co-accused Suresh Chandra, namely, the father of the petitioner, has already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide an order dated 14.08.2014 in Cr. Misc. No. 14638 of 2014. 6. Misc. No. 14638 of 2014. 6. While there would be no difficulty in rejecting the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner despite grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused Suresh Chandra because even earlier, this Court under the order dated 03.04.2015 passed in this very case while hearing it with two other anticipatory bail applications of co-accused Krishna Singh, Ranjeet @ Ranjeet Kuar @ Manak, Abhijeet Kumar @ Vicky, Ram Ayodhya Rai and Shailesh Kumar @ Shailendra Kumar even after noticing the fact as with regard to grant to anticipatory bail to co-accused Suresh Chandra, did not grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner while passing the following order: All the above stated petitions arise out of Maner P.S. Case No. 52 of 2014 registered under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the photo copy of the case diary of Maner P.S.case No. 52 of 2014 has already been received and from perusal of Para-2 of the case diary it appears that Sanha No. 362 had been registered prior to institution of the present case and although inquest report of the deceased Yougendra Prasad @ Bachaan Singh had been prepared but the copy of the inquest report has not been annexed with the case diary nor the same has been incorporated in the case diary. Learned counsel appearing in Cr. Misc. No. 37962 of 2014 submits that alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 16.02.2014 at about 11.30 a.m and the post mortem report of the deceased was commenced on 16.02.2014 at 3.15 p.m within three hours of the death of the deceased but in post mortem examination no rigour mortis was found present on the lower limb of the deceased and rigour mortis had already been disappeared from the upper limb of the dead body and on the aforesaid basis the doctor opined that death of the deceased had taken place within 20 hours to 36 hours and the aforesaid finding of the doctor completely falsified the prosecution story. It is also pointed out that taking note of the aforesaid facts a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already granted privilege of anticipatory bail to co-accused Suresh Chandra vide order dated 14.08.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 14683 of 2014. It is also pointed out that taking note of the aforesaid facts a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already granted privilege of anticipatory bail to co-accused Suresh Chandra vide order dated 14.08.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 14683 of 2014. In view of the aforesaid submission as well as facts and circumstances of the case, I think it proper to call for inquest report as well as Sanha no. 362 dated 16.02.2014. Accordingly, Smt. Anupma Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Danapur or her successor is directed to send the inquest report prepared in Maner P.S. Case No. 52 of 2014 as well as Sanha No. 362 dated 16.02.2014 registered in Maner police station after obtaining the same from the concerned Investigating Officer of maner P.S. Case No. 52 of 2014 within four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of copy of this order. Let these matters be listed after receipt of inquest report as well as copy of Sanha No. 362 dated 16.02.2014 under the same heading. Since one co-accused having more or less similar allegation have already been admitted to anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court, no coercive steps shall be taken against all the above stated petitioners in connection with Maner P.S.Case No. 52 of 2014, pending in court the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Danapur till further order of this Court. (underlining for emphasis) 7. As would be found, this Court had not straightway gone to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners or for that purpose to the other accused persons named above because it had felt the necessity to look into two vital documents namely inquest report and station diary entry not considered while granting anticipatory bail to co-accused Suresh Chandra, any order now in this case can be passed on analyzing the aforesaid two vital documents. 8. Let it be noted that only reason for grant of anticipatory bail to Suresh Chandra, as can be found from the order dated 14.08.2014 in Cr. Misc. 8. Let it be noted that only reason for grant of anticipatory bail to Suresh Chandra, as can be found from the order dated 14.08.2014 in Cr. Misc. No. 14638/2014, that time of death of the deceased was said to be much earlier as recorded in the opinion of the Doctor in post-mortem report as against the time of occurrence suggested in the F.I.R. was recorded without reference to ocular version of the informant and witnesses as would be evident from reading of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 14.08.2014, which reads as follows:- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner, apprehends his arrest in connection with a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is one of the named accused in this case of assault resulting into death of informant’s father in a petty land dispute. Submission is of false implication taking undue advantage of death of the informant’s father much before as is evident from Post Mortem Examination Report also which indicates death of the deceased within 24 to 26 hours whereas post mortem of the dead body was conducted within alleged six hours of death of informant’s father. Further, as submitted, petitioner carries no criminal antecedent. If, it is so, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of his arrest/surrender before the court below within four weeks, let the above named petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Districst – Patna, in connection with Maner P.S. Case No. 52/2014, subject to condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with additional condition to remain physically present before the court below till disposal of the case.” 9. It would thus be seen that this Court even after noticing, the aforesaid order dated 14.8.2014 granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused father of the petitioner had not granted anticipatory bail and in the order dated 03.04.2015 already quoted above had gone deeper into the matter while calling for the case diary, inquest report and station diary entry, as is apparent from the aforesaid order already quoted above. 10. 10. Thus, the crucial question would be as to when there is a conflict between the ocular evidence and medical evidence, which one has to be preferred? Learned counsel for the petitioner in fact very fairly had himself admitted that the settled law is that it is the ocular evidence which has to be given more weightage in comparison to the medical evidence and thus, the doctor's opinion with regard to timing of death cannot be the clinching issue for any purpose, be it for the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail or even in course of trial. 11. In this regard, this Court will have to note that the FIR dated 16.02.2014, recoding the fardbeyan of the informant at 1:00 O' clock at his house (Byapur), had led to institution of the FIR at 3:00 P.M. The F.I.R. was also seen by the Magistrate on the next day i.e. 17.02.2014 and, therefore, it would be very difficult to give credence to the finding shown in the post-mortem report as with regard to death occurring 24 to 36 hours which if reckoned from 3:15 P.M. on 16.02.2014, when the post-mortem was conducted, would shift the time of occurrence anywhere in between 3:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. on 15.02.2014 which would amount to discrediting the entire persecution case of the alleged occurrence taking place only at 11:00 A.M. on 16.02.2014 in the field in presence of large number of persons who have also supported the same in course of investigation by the police, wherein it has also come on record that after the father of the informant was assaulted, he became unconscious on account of injuries inflicted on his person, he was immediately taken to Maner Hospital where he was declared dead by the Doctor. 12. The plea that there was no inquest report is now found to be incorrect inasmuch as pursuant to the order of this Court dated 03.04.2015, the court below has sent the inquest report which goes to show that such inquest report was prepared on 16.02.2014 only at the Darbaza of the informant. 12. The plea that there was no inquest report is now found to be incorrect inasmuch as pursuant to the order of this Court dated 03.04.2015, the court below has sent the inquest report which goes to show that such inquest report was prepared on 16.02.2014 only at the Darbaza of the informant. The inquest report also bears the signatures of two independent persons, namely, Sanjay Kumar and Dhirendra Kumar and on the back of the inquest report, there is an endorsement made by the Choukidar, namely, Baidhyanath Ram, whose name finds in the post-mortem report as well, that he (Chowkidar) had received the dead body after conducting of the post-mortem along with other articles which is also in the date of 16.02.2014. 13. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that when the informant had claimed that he had taken his injured father to hospital after the occurrence at about 11:30 AM on 16.02.2014 and yet inquest report was not prepared in the hospital by the investigating officer, but only at the house of the informant, can also not in any way adversely effect the prosecution case. The informant has clearly said that he has taken his father to the hospital and he was declared dead. It is not impossible for the informant to carry the dead body of his father from the hospital to his house as the police by that time had not arrived at hospital and thus the preparation of inquest report at the house of the informant would in no way weaken the case of the prosecution specially when from station diary entry no. 362 dated 16.02.2014 it is found that on receipt of telephonic information at 12:15 P.M. on 16.02.2014 of Marpit in village Bayapur i.e. the village of the petitioner, the police party had rushed to village Byapur and not for the hospital. 14. As a matter of fact, this Court has carefully perused the station diary entry no. 362 dated 16.02.2014 of Maner Police Station which recorded that at 12:15 P.M. on 16.02.2014 telephonic information was received at the P.S. that a Marpit had taken place on account of land dispute. 14. As a matter of fact, this Court has carefully perused the station diary entry no. 362 dated 16.02.2014 of Maner Police Station which recorded that at 12:15 P.M. on 16.02.2014 telephonic information was received at the P.S. that a Marpit had taken place on account of land dispute. Recording this as a Sanha Entry No. 362 dated 16.02.2014, the police officer is said to have proceeded to the place of occurrence at village- Byapur which is at a distance of seven kilometer as recorded in FIR itself and there the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 1:00 P.M. wherein the petitioner was named as one of the main assailant along with his father Suresh Chandra and his brother Abhishek. 15. Recording of such a prompt First Information Report within two hours of the occurrence with the name of the assailants including that of the petitioner with specific allegation of overt act of assault by itself would inspire confidence as was held by the Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379 which was also related to grant of anticipatory bail for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “11. Admittedly, the FIR had been lodged promptly within a period of two hours from the time of incident at midnight. Promptness in filing the FIR gives certain assurance of veracity of the version given by the informant/complainant. 12. The FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of the eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in loding the FIR, it loses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of concocted story as a result of large number of consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant’s version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand account of what has actually happened, and who was responsible for the offence in question. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant’s version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand account of what has actually happened, and who was responsible for the offence in question. (Vide Thulia Kali v. State of T.N., [ AIR 1973 SC 501 ] Sate of Punjab v. Surja Ram [ AIR 1995 SC 2413 ], Girish Yadav v. State of M.P. [1996 SCC (Cri) 552] and Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujrat [ AIR 2012 SC 37 ])” 16. Thus, if the inquest report was prepared at 1:30 P.M. as is evident from the copy of the inquest report received by this Court and the dead body was sent for post-mortem and was received in the Sub Divisional Hospital, Danapur, Patna at 2:50 P.M. on 16.02.2015 whereafter the post-mortem was conducted at 3:15 P.M., this Court does not find any such material which would discredit either the fact with regard to preparation of timing of the inquest report or time of sending of the dead body for post-mortem within a short span of time from Maner to Danapur which are well connected by road and such distance can also be very well covered in less than half an hour. 17. The submission as with regard to presence of rigor mortis in the lower limb and its being absent in upper limb also no way would discredit the ocular evidence. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence on 19th Edition page 123 with regard to starting point of the rigor mortis , initially with the eye lids and then its expanding to the muscles is also misplaced, inasmuch as, this Court, on perusal of Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, Twenty-Second Edition would find that the time of onset of rigor mortis is three to six hours, inasmuch as, the aforesaid authors in Chapter-VIII “Death in its Medico-Legal Aspects” at page-229, while giving opinion on he issue of rigor mortis, is of the following view:- “Time of onset: The varies greatly in different cases, but the average period of its onset may be regarded as three to six hours after death in temperate climates, and it may takes two to three hours to develop. In India, it usually commences in one to two hours after death. In India, it usually commences in one to two hours after death. Duration: In temperate regioins, rigor mortis usually lasts for two to three days. In northern India, the usual duration of rigor mortis is twenty-four to forty-eight hours in winter and eighteen to thirty-sux hours in summer. According to the investigations of Mackenzie, in Calcutta, the average duration is nineteen hourse and twelve minutes, the shortest period being three hours, and the longest forty hours.----” 18. Thus, at this stage, the doctor’s opinion with regard to rigors mortis in no way would help the prosecution case much less can be treated to be authentic in presence of the ocular version of the informant and other witnesses. This Court, therefore, will not give much weightage for the present to such finding of the doctor who surprisingly has written every thing in his post-mortem report but has knowingly not cared mention as with regard to either presence or absence external injury on the person of the deceased and yet had gone to record his opinion that death had taken place due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of 'above noted injuries'. 19. In this regard, it would be also useful to extract relevant portion of the post-mort report, which reads as follows: Post-mortem examination done on the dead body of Yogendra Prasad @ Bachchu Singh, s/o late Devendra Singh, vill.- Beyapur, P.S.- Maner, District- Patna on 16/2/14 brought and identified by Ch. 3/8 Baijnath Ram and found the following antemortem injuries/findings: External examination:- Rigor mortise present in lower limb, absent in upper limb, eye closed, mouth closed. On dissection-Head, Brain and meringues pale. Chest- Blood in chest cavity, lungs lacerated fracture of ribs of both side. Left 3rd rib, Right side- 5th rib fracture., Heard clear blood in small amount in right chamber. Abdomen- Liver, spleen and kidney pale. Stomach contains undigested food, Bladder partially full. Time elapsed since death- within 24 hours to 36 hours. Opinion of case:- Death in my opinion is due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of above noted injuries caused by hard heavy object. Sd/- Dr. Ram Bhushan Singh M/O S.D.H. Danapur 20. As would be noted above, the Doctor had found two of the ribs of deceased fractured and yet did not record about the absence or presence of external injury on the chest of the deceased. Sd/- Dr. Ram Bhushan Singh M/O S.D.H. Danapur 20. As would be noted above, the Doctor had found two of the ribs of deceased fractured and yet did not record about the absence or presence of external injury on the chest of the deceased. In fact, the Doctor had only noted his finding as with regard to the external examination in respect of rigor mortis or in respect of his finding on dissection while safely omitting to record any injury. Thus, such a perfunctory postmortem report can never be relied much less preferred in presence of ocular version which of course is a matter to be gone into at the time of trial but then this Court prima facie does not find the post-mortem report free from blemish. 21. Thus, when as against the aforementioned unsafe medical opinion in form of a perfunctory post-mortem report, this Court, on perusal of the case diary, has found that there is specific corroboration of allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the deceased by him along with Suresh Chandra, the father of the petitioner as well as Abhishek, the brother of the petitioner, wherein not only the informant but even others had stated that all three of them including the petitioner had assaulted on the chest of the deceased with their fists as a result whereof, the father of the informant had fallen down and had become unconscious and such allegation are also corroborated in the post mortem report by way of fracture of two ribs in his chest, this Court will have no option but to hold that the petitioner along with his father and brother are main assailants who would never deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail in relation to an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 22. Let it be noted that the deceased was an old man aged more than 60 years and therefore such massive assault, even by fists as alleged in the F.I.R. was given on his chest by three persons including the petitioner which admittedly led to causing injury of fracture of his ribs and ultimately became fatal within a couple of hours by itself would put the petitioner, his father Suresh Chandra and his brother namely Abhishek in the category of main accused for offence of murder punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In this regard, from the case diary, it is also found that such statement of the informant with a direct allegation of assault by the petitioner and his father Suresh Chandra and his brother Abhishek was duly corroborated by other witnesses including Sanjay Kumar. 23. In fact, the recovery of the motorcycle of Suresh Chandar, the father of the petitioner at the place of occurrence would further strengthen the case of prosecution as with regard to presence of petitioner, his father and brother at the place of occurrence, which even otherwise has been reiterated by a number of persons before the police in course of investigation, all of whom were said to be present there in connection with measurement of land where the deceased was having his own land, as has also been recorded by the investigating officer in the case diary while describing the place of occurrence. 24. As a matter of fact, while the petitioner has remained absconding since 14.02.2014 despite being his being named in the F.I.R., his brother Abhishek with same allegation was arrested by the police on 14.06.2014 and, therefore, when nothing has been said in this petition about grant of regular bail of Abhishek, this Court would not find the petitioner, an absconding main accused, to be entitled for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 25. In this background, if this Court now has to examine the general principles of grant of anticipatory bail, it must make it clear that the High Court can grant anticipatory bail where the offence is not very serious or there is prima facie material to show that the allegations are absurd and concocted. At the stage of grant of anticipatory bail, the allegations made in the First Information Report have to be examined in all seriousness. This Court can also take aid for examining the veracity and correctness of the First Information Report from the statements recorded in the Case Diary and if thereafter also it is of the view that prima facie the allegations are not absurd or unbelievable, privilege of anticipatory bail cannot be granted specially in offence under Section 302. The Apex Court has in fact after discussing the earlier law on the subject in the case of Jai Prakash Singh (supra) had laid down as follows:- “13. The Apex Court has in fact after discussing the earlier law on the subject in the case of Jai Prakash Singh (supra) had laid down as follows:- “13. There is no substantial difference between Sections 438 and 439 CrPC so far as appreciation of the case as to whether or not a bail is to be granted, is concerned. However, neither anticipatory bail nor regular bail can be granted as a matter of rule. The anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after proper application of mind to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [ (2007) 4 SCC 434 ], State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Hussain [ (2008)1 SCC 213 ] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [ (2008) 13 SCC 305 ]) 20. In the case at hand, if considered in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, we reach an inescapable conclusion that the High Court did not apply any of the aforesaid parameters, rather dealt with a very serious matter in a most casual and cavalier manner and showed undeserving and unwarranted sympathy towards the accused. The High Court erred in not considering the case in the correct perspective and allowed the said applications on the grounds that in the FIR some old disputes had been referred to and the accused had fair antecedents.” 26. Applying the aforesaid test as laid down in the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh (supra) as well as for the reasons indicated above, this Court does not find the petitioner entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail. 27. In fact, this Court would not have recorded such a detailed order for rejecting the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, but Mr. 27. In fact, this Court would not have recorded such a detailed order for rejecting the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, but Mr. Durgesh Nandan, the learned counsel for the petitioner himself was quite emphatic that all of his aforementioned submissions should be considered and recorded. That is why this order has been passed but then it is made clear that anything said above are tentative observations meant only for the purpose of answering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner while rejecting the prayer of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and thus they shall in no way prejudice him in course of consideration of his prayer for regular bail or in course of trial where he will have the full opportunity to test the evidence of prosecution including the Doctor and his doubtful, if not collusive, post-mortem report. 28. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected and the interim protection given to him by the earlier order dated 3.4.2015 is hereby withdrawn. 29. It however goes without saying that if the petitioner surrenders and/or is arrested and makes a prayer for grant of regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by anything said in this order. 30. Before parting with, this Court now must record that the grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused Suresh Chandra, the father of the petitioner, one of the three main assailants vide an order dated 14.8.2014 in Cr. Misc. No. 14638/2014, without taking into consideration all the relevant aspects which have been now considered in this case, does not seem to be correct exercise of discretion by this Court. Therefore, it will be open for the prosecution to file an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the co-accused Suresh Chandra, the father of the petitioner. 31. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court below for apprising the police that that interim protection to the petitioner for his being not arrested in connection with the present case stands withdrawn/recalled.