IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39574 of 2009 AJIT KUMAR ( AJAY RAJ ) @ LALTU,son of Amrendra Yadav @ Amrendra Prasad Yadav, resident of village-Chandpur Bhagha,P.S.- Janki Nagar,District-Purnia, At present residing at Mohalla-Krishnapuri,P.S.- Krishnapuri,District-Patna. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.2999 of 2010 Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Amin,s/o late Bindeshwari Prasad,R/o-Madhepura,Ward No.2, P.S.-Madhepura,District-Madhepura. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR -------- For the Petitioners :M/s Krishna Pd.Singh (Sr.Advocate) and Piyush Anand,Advocate For the Informant :Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh & Niraj Kumar Gupta,Advocates For the State :Jitendra Kr.Singh, Addl.Public Prosecutor --------- 03/ 31-03-2010 As both the cases arise out of the same police station case number, they are being heard together. Heard learned counsel for the parties including learned counsel for the informant. Petitioners in both the cases apprehend their arrest in connection with Madhepura P.S.Case No.247 of 2009 dated 20-06- 2009, registered under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to the FIR vide Annexure-1 on the order of co- accused Paras Kumar co-accused Shyam Kishore Das is alleged to have fired upon the deceased Jay Prakash Yadav, as a result of which 2 he sustained fire arm injury and fell down on the ground. Petitioner Ajit Kumar @ Ajay Raj is not alleged to have participated in the assault though he is said to be present there on his Motor cycle and his name is in the FIR as an accused. Petitioner Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Amin is not named in the FIR as an accused but during the course of investigation statement of Kiran Devi, widow of the deceased and one Santosh Kumar Suman, brother-in-law of the deceased have been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where they have stated that co- accused Akhilesh Yadav, this petitioner, and co-accused Randhir Yadav were the assailants of the deceased. However, the name of the petitioner Ajit Kumar @ Ajay Raj has not been mentioned in their statements. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Amin submits that he had no motive to participate in the crime in question. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the informant has strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners. It has also been stated at the Bar that the prayer for anticipatory bail of co-accused Randhir Yadav has been rejected by a Bench of this Court. In the aforesaid background and in view of the fact that petitioner Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Amin ( in Cr.Misc.No.2999 of 2010) is alleged to be one of the assailants of the deceased, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. He must surrender in the court below within a period of four week from today and seek regular bail, if so advised. If such prayer is made, the same shall be disposed of on its 3 own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. So far as petitioner Ajit Kumar @ Ajay Raj (in Cr.Misc.No.39574 of 2009) is concerned, in view of the fact that he is not alleged to have participated in the actual assault to the deceased, his prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today in Madhepura P.S.Case No.247 of 2009, the above named petitioner in Cr.Misc.No.39574 of 2009 shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, subject to the conditions as laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and subject to the further conditions that : (a) one of the bailors must be a Government servant or close family member of the petitioner who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioner. (b) if the petitioner is found involved in same and similar nature of cases in future, then in that case the informant/prosecution shall be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of the bail of the petitioner, and if such a petition is filed, the court below would be obliged to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving 4 opportunity of hearing to all concerned and (c) the petitioner shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing himself in person or through representation by his lawyer on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioner fails to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner. AH/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)