IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44317 of 2009 1. MUSHTARI BEGUM @ Mushtari Bibi, wife of late Laique Beg 2. Pappu Beg son of late Laique Beg Both resident of village Muradabad, P.S. Sasaram (M), District Rohtas Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.7127 of 2010 1. SHIBAL BEG @ MERAJ BEG, son of late Laique Beg 2. Jibu Beg @ Timpu Beg, son of late Laique Beg Both are resident of village Muradabad, P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 24.2.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the informant as also the State. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners in these two cases for offence under section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code as also section 27 of the Arms Act is primarily based on the ground that there is a case and counter case in which allegation against the petitioner Mushtari Begum is only either of inciting or abusing. Counsel has further submitted that the whole case against the other petitioners also is false, inasmuch as whereas consistent allegation against them is of causing injury by fire arm, not a single fire arm injury has been found on the 2 three injured persons i.e. Mirza Jamal, Shakil Beg and Mirza Wakil Beg. Counsel has also placed reliance on an order of the court below dated 25.11.2009 in the counter case granting anticipatory bail to a few accused therein despite injuries on the person of Pappu Beg, petitioner no.2, and one Chhamu Beg (not petitioner) received by them in the hands of the members of prosecution party of this case. Counsel for the informant, on the other hand, has submitted that it is not a fact that all the persons of the counter case have been granted anticipatory bail and according to him some of the accused persons including Jamal Beg in fact was enlarged only on regular bail after remaining in custody for a period of nearly four months. He has further submitted that Pappu Beg and Meraz Beg, the two petitioners of these cases have also criminal antecedent. Considering the aforementioned submissions as also the fact that there is a case and counter case in which some of the accused persons of the prosecution party have also been granted the privilege of 3 anticipatory bail, this Court would grant anticipatory bail to Mushtari Begum @ Mushtari Bibi, petitioner no.1 of Cr.Misc.No. 44317/2009 and Jibu Beg @ Timpu Beg, petitioner no.2 of Cr.Misc.No. 7127/2010 who have no criminal antecedent. That being so, if the petitioners, namely, Mushtari Begum @ Mushtari Bibi and Jibu Beg @ Timpu Beg, would surrender in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram within a period of four weeks from today, they would be released on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each in Sasaram (M) P.S.Case No. 781/2009 to his satisfaction, subject to the conditions as laid down u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C. The prayer for anticipatory bail of Pappu Beg and Shibal Beg @ Meraj Beg who are said to have criminal antecedent is, however, rejected. Thus, if they surrender and seek regular bail, their case would be considered without being prejudiced by the present order. With the aforesaid observation and 4 direction, both of these applications are disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/