IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7451 of 2010 1.MOTI YADAV son of late Jayilal Yadav 2.Bhupendra yadav son of late Jayilal Yadav 3.Jitendra yadav son of Sri Bhupendra yadav, all are resident of Village Rampur, P.S. Saur Bazar, Dist. Saharsa….Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 18.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a complaint case no. 1786© 2007 in which cognizance has been taken under section 392 of the Indian penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as a matter of fact prior to filing of a complaint case, petitioner no.2 had filed a complaint case vide annexure-2 in which the complainant of the present vide annexure 1 was accused. He has invited my attention towards annexure-3 to demonstrate that petitioner no.2 lodged a first information report also in the year 2007 in which the complainant of the present case and other family members were accused. Be that as it may, in view of the nature of allegations and the offence under section 392 I.P.C. committed by the petitioners, this court is not persuaded to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. However, if petitioners surrender in the court below within a period of four - 2 - weeks from today and make a prayer for grant of bail, the learned court below shall be obliged to take into consideration the submissions recorded above as also the fact that enmities between the parties are going on from before . By looking all these materials besides others, if available, the learned trial court shall dispose of the bail petition of the petitioners on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Birendra Prasad Verma, j) M.Rahman