IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10859 of 2010 1. Urmila Devi, wife of Ganesh Yadav 2. Kaili Devi, wife of Lalan Yadav 3. Sulekha Devi, wife of Binod Yadav 4. Ganeshi Yadav @ Khushi Lal Yadav, son of Kishore Yadav. 5. Gopal Yadav, son of Upendra Yadav. All residents of Village- Belsara, P.S. Raniganj,District- Araria. …………………………………..Petitioners. Versus The State of Bihar …………………………Opposite Party. ----------- For the petitioners :- Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate. For the State :- Mr. R. B. Roy ‘Raman’, A.P.P. 2. 26. 04. 2010. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. Let it be kept on the record. Heard the parties. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 2076 C of 2008, in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 379, 452, 324, 323, 325, 342 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are case and counter case vide Annexure-1 and 2 with respect to same occurrence. It appears that from the side of petitioners a complaint case vide Annexure-2 was filed earlier and in retaliation the present complaint case was vide Annexure-1 was filed. It is also submitted that except Petitioner No. 4 Ganeshi Yadav @ Khushi Lal Yadav, other accused persons are not alleged to have assaulted any body by any lethal weapon on any vital part of the body, though Petitioner No. 5 Gopal Yadav and accused Binod Yadav are alleged to have assaulted the complainant by lathi. 2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the petitioners has conceded that both sides are on litigating terms and he has highlighted that against the Petitioner No. 4 Ganeshi Yadav @ Khushi Lal Yadav, there is specific allegation of assault against him to the complainant by Garasa on his head. In the aforesaid background and in view of facts and circumstances of the case that there is specific allegation of assault against Petitioner No. 4, Ganeshi Yadav @ Khushi Lal Yadav, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. Petitioner No. 4 must surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and if so advised, seek regular bail which shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudice by the present order. However, so far Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are concerned, there is no specific allegation of specific assault by using any lethal weapon against them and therefore in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioners, namely, Urmila Devi, Kaili Devi, Sulekha Devi and Gopal Yadav, shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2076 C of 2008, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)