IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14672 of 2008 VINAY PANDEY @ VIJAY PANDEY & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 13.05.2008 Heard learned senior counsel appearing in the present case. He submits that petitioners no.2, 3 and 6, namely, Rajendra Pandey, Golu @ Chandrashekhar Pandey and Manoj Pandey respectively have already been arrested. In that view of the matter their application has become infructuous. The anticipatory bail application is therefore confined to petitioner nos. 1, 4 and 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the above petitioners submitted that it is false allegations and accusations where all the family members have been roped in. He points out that there is no allegation against Vinay Pandey @ Vijay Pandey in the F.I.R. alleging any overt or covert act. In so far as petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are concerned no doubt they have been given role of order givers and the so-called firing was indulged into by one Sanjay Pandey who has not approached the court as yet. Looking at the totality of the allegations against the petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within four weeks from today, let the petitioners namely, Vinay Pandey @ Vijay Pandey, Pappu Pandey @ Chandramauli Pandey and Ramshraya Pandey, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabua), in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 9 of 2008 subject to 2 conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Petitioners shall not misuse the privilege of bail by intimidating the witnesses or interfere with investigation and shall be bound by the condition of Section 438(2) of the Act. Rajeev/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)