IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27599 of 2009 Bahadur Singh, son of late Sheojee Singh, resident of village- Hirdyapur English, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur at Ara. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Anil Singh son of Sri Bhagwan Singh, resident of village- Hirdyapur English, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur. .. Accused.. Opposite parties. ----------- 2. 25.08.2011 The informant- petitioner has preferred this application against the order dated 20.4.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-2, Ara in Sessions Trial No. 320-2007 by which the accused –opposite party no. 2 was granted bail in Jagdishpur P. S. Case No. 137 of 2006 under Sections 341, 323, 302/34 I.P.C. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the anticipatory bail application of the opposite party no. 2 was rejected by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.4.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 48463 of 2008 but the learned trial court has granted bail to the accused opposite party no. 2 and secondly Chhattu Singh was not the main co- accused who was granted bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 54137 of 2006. The 2 opposite party no. 2 was absconding even thereafter he had been granted bail. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that initially only three accused were charge sheeted and Chhattu Singh was one of them. No charge-sheet had been submitted against opposite party no. 2 and his name had appeared during trial of Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2007. Opposite party no. 2 has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Since in similar facts and circumstances, accused Chhattu Singh was granted bail, the opposite party no. 2 has also been granted bail. No interference in the impugned order is required. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, it appears that the contention of learned A.P.P. for the State is correct. Initially after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against only three accused, namely, Uday Narayan Singh, Chhattu Singh, and Raj Kumar Singh and the names of opposite party no. 2 and others had appeared during trial of Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2007 and they have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It appears that in similar facts and circumstances, co- 3 accused Chhattu Singh has been granted bail. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This application is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)