IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8103 of 2010 01. AMOL SINGH 02. Ajit Singh 03. Sudhir Singh 04. Subodh Singh Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 15.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the complainant, who has appeared suo motu. The defence of the petitioner in a Complaint Case under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 420 and 120(B)/34 of the Penal Code is that the complainant and they are agnates. There is a dispute between them regarding ancestral lands. The facts have eloquently been noticed in Cr. Misc. No. 43643 of 2009 and Cr. Misc. No. 46548 of 2009, granting bail to the petitioners in an earlier Complaint Case No. 87C of 2009 filed by another agnate noticing the civil nature of the dispute regarding creation of wrong jamabandi, forged power of attorney, proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. etc. Counsel for the complainant submits that the administrative authorities during enquiry have found that forged jamabandies were created by the petitioner in collusion with Revenue officials but 2 fairly acknowledges that no First Information Report has been lodged by the officials authorities in this context. Considering the observations of a civil nature of dispute in the earlier order granting bail, the parties being agnates, let the petitioners, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in connection with Chitragupta Nagar P.S. Case No. 472 of 2009, G.R. No. 1657 of 2009. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)