IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37581 of 2010 1. RAMOD YADAV 2. JANAK KUMAR @ JANAK YADAV 3. PRAMOD YADAV 4. MURARI YADAV 5. MAHENDRA YADAV @ MURAT YADAV 6. GOPAL YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02. 09.12.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Theft is said ornamental followed by no recovery. No allegation of demand of ransom and injury is not justifying, constitution of offence under section 307 of the I.P.C. is the defence. More specifically it is said that assailants are shown twelve in number, but injuries are found simple in nature. Land dispute is an admitted fact with counter case for the incident of the same day. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the above named petitioners shall be released 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, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Jogapatti P.S. Case No.212/2010, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Vikash ( Mandhata Singh, J.)